Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu

Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 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 be […]

Read more "Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu"

The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan

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"

The Revival of Ray LXXXIX

Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 has exhaustively referred to case law, on reasonable classification under Article 14, to observe, Article 14 frowns upon what constitutes hostile discrimination but does not bar classification which is reasonable. To answer whether a classification is reasonable, one must look beyond the classification to the […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray LXXXIX"

Family of Marks

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., subsequent proprietor of the trade mark ‘FORZEST’, prayed for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the mark ‘FOLZEST’. DWD Pharmaceuticals asserted, Sun Pharmaceutical obtained above ad-interim ex-parte injunction by concealing various material facts. DWD Pharmaceuticals is a registered proprietor of ‘ZEST Family of Marks’ since 1983. […]

Read more "Family of Marks"

Indira Jaising

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"

Claim of Juvenility IV

The crime is heinous. Its execution was vicious and cruel, by any stretch of imagination. The entire crime was calculated and ruthless. Our adjudication is restricted to, whether Shubam Sangra was a juvenile on date of commission of offence. The ratio discernible is, credibility and acceptability of documents would depend on facts and circumstances. We […]

Read more "Claim of Juvenility IV"

Contract of Agency

The ambit of a contract of agency has been elaborated upon lucidly by this Court on various occasions. As averted to in Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal & Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad, (1955) 1 SCR 393 a contract of agency does not entail control over minutiae of agent’s actions. Such a level of oversight would […]

Read more "Contract of Agency"

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"

Simplicity in Invention

Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Ltd., [1985] RPC 59; England and Wales Court of Appeals in Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA, [2006] 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"

Ethnic

Mumbai witnessed mob frenzy, violence, communal tension and riots from 06.12.1992 to 10.12.1992 and from 06.01.1993 to 20.01.1993. When citizens of Mumbai were about to breathe a sigh of relief, there were serial bomb blasts on 12.03.1993.   The meaning of ‘ethnic’ according to Merriam­-Webster Dictionary is, “of or relating to large groups of people […]

Read more "Ethnic"

Review of Death Penalty XXXII

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 quoted in Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 478 had laid down, undue long delay in execution of Death Sentence would entitle prayer of commutation of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment. First and foremost, time taken cannot be called or termed […]

Read more "Review of Death Penalty XXXII"

Contempt Jurisdiction X

Court convicted the contemnor for having committed civil and criminal contempt. It had become evident, the contemnor has, in his well-calculated and deliberate scheme of things, given assurances and undertakings to mislead Courts in India, including this Court, when he had no intention to comply or abide by any of his assurances. Acts would demonstrate, […]

Read more "Contempt Jurisdiction X"

Fly High, Higher

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"

Papaver Somniferum L.

As such, ‘poppy straw’ would mean all parts of ‘opium poppy’ except seeds; ‘opium poppy’ has been defined under Section 2(xvii)(a) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to mean, “the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.”. Section 15 of 1985 Act provides for punishment for contravention in relation to ‘poppy straw’. […]

Read more "Papaver Somniferum L."

Faraaz

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"

T.I.M.E. v. Times

Settlement entered into between Plaintiff and TIME Inc. [22.04.2004, CS(OS) 1389/2003][1] has no relevance in present suit for infringement and passing off. Settlement Agreement cannot jettison phonetic similarity of marks qua a third party in another matter. ‘T.I.M.E.’ and ‘TIMES’ are phonetically identical. Letters in ‘T.I.M.E.’ are separated with dots. This is a trivial dissimilarity […]

Read more "T.I.M.E. v. Times"