Only one Academy Award has ever been revoked in history of Oscars. ‘Young Americans’ won for Best Documentary in 1969. It was discovered, ‘Young Americans’ had played in a theater in October, 1967. Oscar was handed over to ‘Journey Into Self’. _____ 03.10.1980 – Chhabirani was gang-raped… 23.04.2002 – We are satisfied, present case is a […]Read more "Chhabirani"
Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath, Lucknow v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 405 held, there is a distinction between encroachment on judicial power and nullification of effect of a judicial decision by changing law retrospectively. The former is outside competence of Legislature. The latter is within its permissible limits. It would be permissible for Legislature […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna"
‘SUBERB’ is not phonetically similar to ‘SUBWAY’. ‘Sub’, when used in context of sandwiches, is an abbreviation for ‘Submarine’, which represents a well-known variety of long-bodied sandwiches. Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Bikas, 1975 CarswellOnt 1001-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Emma Foods, 1976 CarswellOnt 1006-Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Haralambos Voultsos, 1977 CarswellOnt 1041 testifies to commonality of […]Read more "Submarine"
Any provision which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 can be struck down. Section 10(26AAA) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 excludes Indians who have settled in Sikkim, prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975, but whose names are not registered as ‘Sikkim Subjects’. There is no difference and/or distinction between […]Read more "Sikkimese"
Needless to say, no one can either be taxed or penalized for holding an opinion which is not in conformity with constitutional values. It is only when an opinion gets translated into action and such action results in injury or harm or loss, an action in tort will lie. Courts cannot turn a blind […]Read more "Morality of Constitutional Tort"
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"
‘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"
Plaintiffs are manufacturers of containers, used to store food products, sold under the brand name ’Tupperware’. Defendant is also a manufacturer of containers, used for storage of food products, sold under the brand name ‘Signoraware’. Plaintiffs have brought this action seeking remedies in respect of Plaintiffs’ Suit Products [MM Square, Best Lunch Bag and Spice […]Read more "Product Configuration Trade Dress"
Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 177 observed, threat of selling offending goods in Delhi would itself confer jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi to entertain a suit claiming injunction. Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688 held, where an issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised, plaints need to […]Read more "Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu"
Amitabh Bachchan alleges violation of his ‘publicity rights as a celebrity’ as has also been recognized by this Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382. It cannot seriously be disputed, Amitabh Bachchan is a well-known personality and is also represented in various advertisements. Amitabh Bachchan is aggrieved by unauthorized […]Read more "The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan"
October, 1980 – Abdul Rahman Antulay set up Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan Trust which had Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Trustees. It was a prayer, Court should issue a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 disqualified from continuing to hold office. _____ This constitutional action stands in a class by […]Read more "Indira Jaising"
Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Ltd.,  RPC 59; England and Wales Court of Appeals in Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA,  EWHC 1398 (Ch); F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 1 (DEL); Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1700; […]Read more "Simplicity in Invention"
Plaintiff’s grievance, pithily placed, is, Defendant has in a brazen and blatant manner copied Plaintiff’s registered trademark: ‘FLY HIGH’. Plaintiff has no exclusive right to use the word ‘HIGH’ which, as brought out by Defendant, is a fact concealed by Plaintiff. Defendant is right in stating, ‘FLY HIGHER’ is only used in conjunction with its […]Read more "Fly High, Higher"
As discussed, right to privacy is not inheritable by heirs of deceased. Plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by making of this movie. But, unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by Plaintiffs. It is asserted, Plaintiffs are entitled to be left alone, to […]Read more "Faraaz"
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"
‘Classic Trinity Test’ of ‘Goodwill, Misrepresentation and Damages’ [Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc,  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"
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"
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"
Plaintiffs cannot seek a restraint against Defendants from using their registered trademark ‘MINDA UTO’ for Plaintiffs do not have registration for said goods under Class 04 while Defendants do. In view of Section 31 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 registration of the trademark is prima facie evidence of its validity in favor of Defendants. […]Read more "Uno Minda v. Minda Uto"
Learned Single Judge did not agree, Courts in Delhi could have jurisdiction. It does not take much in the virtual world to masquerade as somebody else. According to us, principles surrounding territorial jurisdiction, in cases of online trade via internet websites, are fairly well established. Even if a website is not directed at customers in […]Read more "Domain Name III"