INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark

admin_lawsdelhi Jul 7, 2023 0 Comments

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2021 Page 1 of 19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 4 th July, 2023 Date of decision: 6 th July, 2023…

C P C INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

DB – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 43 Rule 1 — Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999), Section(s) 28(3), 30(2)(e), 134 – Refusal of application for rejection of plaint – Maintainability of appeal — No provision for filing an appeal from an order of refusal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC passed by a Court — No appeal can be maintainable under the said provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 14, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Manmohan & Saurabh Banerjee, JJ. FAO(OS) (COMM) 3 of 2023 CM APPL.1397-1398 of 2023Decided on: 12.01.2023 Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant Versus Mother…

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) against the makers of a feature film called ‘Haathi Mere Saathi’ HELD “registration of the trade mark in one class cannot, by itself, give [DRL] an unrestricted right or monopoly over the letters D, R and L, when used in that order.”

admin_lawsdelhi Apr 21, 2021 0 Comments

On March 23, the Delhi High Court dismissed a trade mark disparagement claim by Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) against the makers of a feature film called ‘Haathi Mere Saathi’. The Claim “…

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

ZYCLEAR, sued Uniza over their apprehended use of the trade mark ZACLEAR . Gujarat based companies slugging in Delhi HC . Rejection of plaint motion moved by Uniza against Cadila, dismissed

admin_lawsdelhi Apr 20, 2021 0 Comments

Before the judge here is a rejection of plaint motion moved by Uniza against a claim by Cadila. On the infringement side of this motion, Cadila, the proprietors of ZYCLEAR,…

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Where the [Claimant] has made sufficiently long use of a particularly distinctive device mark, a special obligation is cast on the competitor to avoid confusion.

admin_lawsdelhi Apr 20, 2021 0 Comments

HELD applying United Biscuits v. Asda Stores. (Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, Volume 114, Issue 12, 1997, Pages 513–542, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/1997rpc513) Where the has made sufficiently long use of a…

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Foreign entity which has no market presence in India, it was essential to establish not only that it enjoys reputation and goodwill outside India, but also that the said reputation and goodwill had transcended territorial boundaries and spilled over to India in order to establish a case of infringement or passing off.

admin_lawsdelhi May 31, 2020 0 Comments

The Court in Keller Williams Realty Inc. v. Dingle Buildcons Pvt. Ltd., reiterated that for a foreign entity which has no market presence in India, it was essential to establish not…

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Intellectual Property Rights

admin_lawsdelhi Dec 26, 2019 0 Comments

Intellectual Property Rights In Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 25 of The Patents Act, 1970, (‘Patents Act’) reiterated that no…

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) against the makers of a feature film called ‘Haathi Mere Saathi’ HELD “registration of the trade mark in one class cannot, by itself, give [DRL] an unrestricted right or monopoly over the letters D, R and L, when used in that order.”

ZYCLEAR, sued Uniza over their apprehended use of the trade mark ZACLEAR . Gujarat based companies slugging in Delhi HC . Rejection of plaint motion moved by Uniza against Cadila, dismissed

Where the [Claimant] has made sufficiently long use of a particularly distinctive device mark, a special obligation is cast on the competitor to avoid confusion.

Intellectual Property Rights

You Missed

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark

DB – services rendered by advocates are professional activities, and, therefore, they cannot be levied with taxes under the “commercial establishment” category

DB – Defamation — Nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence did the appellant or its witnesses state that the amounts were not due — Respondent’s assertion of there being outstanding amounts which had not been paid by the appellant Company cannot be termed to be false or per se defamatory.