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"

Promissory Estoppel X

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills, (1979) 2 SCC 409 was authored by Bhagwati J for a Two-Judge Bench. Within 2 years, Kailasam J for a Two-Judge Bench in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar, (1981) 1 SCC 11 found fault in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills and held, observations made were not in tune with Judgments of Constitution Benches […]

Read more "Promissory Estoppel X"

Review of Death Penalty XXXI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow confirmed Death Sentence. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. The case on hand is one of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness. That we have ruled out circumstances relating to i) making of an extra-judicial confession and ii) discovery of the weapon of […]

Read more "Review of Death Penalty XXXI"

Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan JJ

Learned Single Judge has dealt with arguments and contentions raised by SOOTHE and has rightly reached a prima facie conclusion, DABUR’s mark does not infringe SOOTHE’s trademark and DABUR is not passing off its goods as those of SOOTHE. As rightly argued by DABUR and decided by Learned Single Judge, ‘SUPER’ is descriptive and laudatory. […]

Read more "Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan JJ"

A Legally Enforceable Debt IV

Though a post-dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, the cheque must represent the legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment.    The sum, as represented in the cheque at the time of encashment, was not owed. Since the cheque did not represent the […]

Read more "A Legally Enforceable Debt IV"

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"

Preventive Detention Statute IV

Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403: Preventive Detention is devised to afford protection to society. Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 395: if there is any delay in arresting, pursuant to ‘order of detention’, which is prima facie unreasonable, State must give reasons explaining. Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State […]

Read more "Preventive Detention Statute IV"