Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Madras High Court said that if the Arbitrators are not paid their fees / costs on account of the moratorium order, the object of arbitration will get defeated, as competent Arbitrators will hesitate to become Arbitrators in a dispute involving Companies facing financial crisis.
“The mere insertion of 
figure above the word 
in the defendant’s mark does not mitigate the fact of infringement or of the defendant consciously seeking to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.”
The use of ‘VIVANTA VACATION CLUB' as a part of a trade name will likely deceive unwary consumers of their association with the mark ‘VIVANTA' as a domain name can have all the characteristics of a trade mark and could result in an act of passing off.
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.
Gauhati High Court was faced with a peculiar case where “petitioner” had followed every rule in the book to file a well-planned petition; however, in reality the petitioner did not exist!
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.
The Delhi High Court held that Facebook posts cannot be treated as determinative of the location of a person at a particular point of time. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of Intellectual Property Appellate Board and restored the rectification petitions filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for re-hearing.
It is found that taking undue advantage of the previous Notice, by which parties’ Advocates were permitted to indicate the date of
Delhi High Court: A Bench comprising of Valmiki J. Mehta, J. dismissed an application for recalling of its earlier order, whereby the