Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision V / The Demonetization Recommendation

Shri P. Chidambaram submits, result of demonetization was disastrous. But, if Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] had a nexus with objectives to be achieved, Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] would not be bad in law merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. It will not be proper for Court to enter into an area which should be […]

Read more "Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision V / The Demonetization Recommendation"

Comparative Advertising III

‘GLUCON-D TANGY ORANGE’ v. ‘DABUR GLUCOPLUS-C ORANGE’   The TV commercial identifies ‘orange glucose’ as ‘product category’. But, is it disparaging in nature? Disparagement is an act of belittling someone’s goods or services with a misleading remark. The TV Commercial does not disparage any ‘orange glucose’ drink. Disparagement cannot be a far-fetched inference. It would […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising III"

The Revival of Ray XC

Constitution Bench in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 held, the words ‘rules’ and ‘regulations’ are used in an Act to limit powers of a statutory authority; any action of such bodies in excess of their power or in violation of restrictions placed is ultra vires; statutory bodies cannot use […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray XC"

Quia Timet III

Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Court Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement. Respondent-Plaintiff is not only a prior adopter but also a prior registrant and allegation of suppression is irrelevant. Court is in agreement, packaging […]

Read more "Quia Timet III"

The Doctrine of Blue Pencil

An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all ‘material facts’ by both parties. Manmohan Nanda v. United Insurance, (2022) 4 SCC 582 summarizes same. A contract meant to cover a shop situated in a basement had an exclusion clause which specified, the contract did not cover the basement. Tata AIG General Insurance […]

Read more "The Doctrine of Blue Pencil"

No Turn

It is evident, Plaintiff has a registered trade mark – ‘NO TURN’. Plaintiff has been in continuous use of this trade mark since 15.01.2008. Defendant is the prior user of the mark since 2007. The use of the mark by Defendant is intermittent and not voluminous so as to establish the defence under Section 34 […]

Read more "No Turn"

One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor

‘Classic Trinity Test’ of ‘Goodwill, Misrepresentation and Damages’ [Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc, [1990] 1 All ER 873] – Satisfied. _____ Both parties claim proprietary rights and utilize the mark ‘GeoCrete’ in respect of identical goods. To permit concurrent use, in factual situation noted, would cause public confusion and result in violation […]

Read more "One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor"

Ex Debito Justitiae II

The principle of ‘ex debito justitiae‘ has been emphasized. No man should suffer because of mistakes of Court. To err is human and Courts including Apex Court are no exception. It has been held, rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice and not mistresses of justice. The principle of ‘ex debito justitiae‘ cannot be given […]

Read more "Ex Debito Justitiae II"

Lord Hale’s Ghost Returns

The concept of dignity forms the very foundation to the Constitution and the rights enshrined in it [Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225]. _____ Statutes are considered to be ‘always speaking’ [Dharni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 480]. Court’s power to purposively interpret a statutory […]

Read more "Lord Hale’s Ghost Returns"

Comparative Advertising II

Reckitt states, on 15.03.1979, it registered the word mark ‘HARPIC’. HUL also manufactures and markets a toilet cleaner, which is sold under the trademark ‘DOMEX’. Learned Single Judge declined Reckitt’s prayer to interdict HUL from broadcasting a TV Commercial. It necessary, fair amount of latitude be available to advertisers. There is an element of creativeness […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising II"

Prayer of Amendment

Court must be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment if Court is of view if such amendment is not allowed, party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. The principles governing an amendment which may be permitted even after expiry of statutory period of limitation were laid down […]

Read more "Prayer of Amendment"

Fourth Schedule Fee

Amendments made by Arbitration Amendment Act, 2019 have been somewhat a non-starter. _____ Fourth Schedule came into effect on 23.10.2015. Fourth Schedule is not applicable to International Commercial Arbitrations and where Arbitrators’ Fees are to be determined in accordance with Rules of Arbitral Institutions. _____ Arbitrator’s Fees must be fixed at inception to avoid unnecessary […]

Read more "Fourth Schedule Fee"

Comparative Advertising I

Marico’s grievance pertains to Dabur. It is alleged, impugned advertisements convey a clear message: Marico’s product is ineffective and useless. On behalf of Dabur it is contended, impugned advertisements are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and are legitimate, honest, truthful, well substantiated and statistically proven.   A balance has to be struck. An advertiser cannot, while […]

Read more "Comparative Advertising I"

Readiness and Willingness II

Pt. Prem Raj v. D.L.F. Housing and Construction (Private) Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 1355; N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115; His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526; K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1; Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 […]

Read more "Readiness and Willingness II"