Disruption of business of Defendant, not a ground to deny injunction
CASE LIST
- Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.; AIR 1977 Delhi 41
CASE LIST Dishonest disposal of the company’s properties and non-crediting of the proceeds thereof in the accounts of the company B.M. Bajoria vs. Union of India and Ors.[1] Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property [S. 420 read with S. 120(B) of IPC] S.C. Chaddha and Ors. vs. State of Delhi[2] S.P. Gupta and Ors….
Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. D. Sharma and Ors. 2019(77) PTC 411(Del) Plaintiff started using the mark “BOOKMYSHOW” in 2007 as a ticketing venture and had revenues of Rs. 150 Crores per year. Defendant was using “BOOKMYEVENT”. Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for infringement and passing off in respect of its trade mark…
Triumphant Institute of Management Education v. Aspiring Mind Assessment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 13.05.2014: CS(OS) No. 1058 of 2014 before the High Court of Delhi Plaintiff claimed to be proprietor of the mark AIMCAT in Classes 16 and 41 claiming user from 2002. Defendant was using AMCAT since 2008 and the same was an abbreviation…
Citation: 2012 LLR 22 Decided On: 20.09.2011 Court: High Court of Delhi Facts Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad (Haryana) (“Commissioner“) initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & M.P. Act, 1952 (“Act“) against the Petitioner on the ground that Petitioner had allegedly violated the Act by not depositing provident fund contributions on…
Venootschap onder Firma Senta Aromatic marketing’s Application; [1999] E.T.M.R. 429 (Eur. Comm. Trade marks Office, Second Board of Appeal) Brief Facts: The Applicant applied for registration of a smell mark with the description ‘THE SMELL OF FRESH CUT GRASS’ for tennis balls. The Examiner was of the view that the words ‘the smell of fresh…
Pandit Kulfi and Cafe v. Pandit Kulfi 2016 (65) PTC 414 (Rajasthan) Brief Facts: Appellant was proprietor of the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi, Ice Creams and other milk products. Appellant came to know that the Respondent is also using the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi. Appellant filed a suit for Permanent injunction against the Respondent along…