Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The present case has highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between protecting fair access to standardized technologies and protecting intellectual property rights.
After considering the inventory of the infringing products and the conduct of defendants, the Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff for Rs 50 lakh on account of damages and Rs 2 lakh are awarded as costs.
X Corp had alleged that CCDH created faulty narratives about X (formerly Twitter) being overwhelmed by hateful content, thereby harming its business by driving advertisers away from the platform
“Merely, under the pretext of freedom of expression, one cannot make interview intruding the privacy of others, the Law does not give such absolute license to the Youtubers and the social media to spoil the reputation of others.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 22
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 13
The plaintiff’s main product line includes an ointment meant for relief of boils and abrasions famously known as ‘SU-MAG’ and also manufactures ‘MAG-MAG’, ‘CREMOBAR’, ‘COFEX’, ‘GLYCERIN’, ‘SUPPOSITORY’ as well as other ayurvedic products namely ‘Livzon Syrup and Capsule’ and ‘Imminex Syrup and Capsule’.
“The infringement conducted by defendant by imitating plaintiff’s mark ‘WOODLAND’ and ‘tree device 
’ has been deliberate and calculated.”
The procurement of LNG may become onerous as had happened in August and December 2022 but no irreparable loss and injury would result to the ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel.
“Section 34 confers power on the court to set aside an award, the power could be exercised to set aside any or all such awards, whether composite, interim, final or additional”
The Court is not meant to act as a Court of first appeal and cannot supplant its view over that of the Arbitral Tribunal.
“Piracy of cinematograph films is one of the biggest causes for losses in the film industry. Thus, various legislative steps have been taken to curb piracy and recently, amendments have been carried out in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to deal with piracy in a much stricter manner.”
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on breach of contract.
CoA dismisses appeal against SICC Judge’s decision regarding the calculation of damages for breach of an aircraft purchase agreement.
The landlord was offered the possession of the suit property which was refused by him on the pretext of damage to the suit property, whereas no evidence has been adduced by him about damage to the suit property except his bald statements.
The Delhi High Court observed that ‘VOLVO' mark was blatantly infringed as branded stickers and infringing products bearing the said mark were found on the premises of the defendant.
The Delhi High Court opined that the defendants took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton (LV) marks and deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the LV marks.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to SanDisk LLC for its trade mark ‘SanDisk’ and ‘Cruzer blade’. Additionally, Rs. 5 lakhs were awarded as damages.
All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark ‘RPG’ and/or ‘RPG DEVELOPERS’ and/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s artistic work or any other trade mark/artistic work deceptively similar to the ‘RPG’ marks of the plaintiff. Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded as damages to the plaintiff.