| | |

Parakh Vanijya Private Limited v. Baroma Agro Product and Ors.

Parakh Vanijya Private Limited v. Baroma Agro Product and Ors.  2018 (76) PTC 1 (SC) Brief Facts: Plaintiff claimed to use the mark ‘MALABAR’ for Biryani Rice from 2001. Defendants started to use the mark ‘MALABAR GOLD’ for Biryani Rice. Plaintiff filed a suit in 2012 for infringement of trade mark and passing off against…

| |

Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors.

Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors. 2015 (62) PTC 64 [Del] Brief Facts: Defendants released the below mentioned advertisement. In the said advertisement, the Defendant compared Eveready LED Bulb with Havells LED Bulb. Plaintiffs filed a Suit for Disparagement against the Plaintiff. Along with the suit, the Plaintiffs also filed an…

| | |

V And S Vin Spirit Ab v. Kullu Valley Mineral Water Co.

V And S Vin Spirit Ab v. Kullu Valley Mineral Water Co. 2005 (30) PTC 47 (Del) Brief Facts: Plaintiff was using the mark ‘ABSOLUT’ for Vodka Defendant started to use Kullu Valley Mineral Water Absolute for Water and Soda. Plaintiff filed the present suit against the Defendant for Infringement of Trade Mark and Passing…

| |

P.K. Sen v. Exxon Mobile Corporation and Ors.

P.K. Sen v. Exxon Mobile Corporation and Ors.   2017 (69) PTC 271 [Del][DB] Plaintiff No. 1 was a company incorporated in USA with no office in India. It was the registered proprietor of the mark EXXON in India. Plaintiff No. 2 Company was Plaintiffs’ wholly owned subsidiary in India. Plaintiff No. 2 carried on…

| |

Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call

Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call CS(Comm) No. 1381/2016 19th April, 2017 In October, 2016, Plaintiff, Mr Sunil Mittal and Darzi (India) LLP, registered proprietor of the trademark “THE DARZI, THE SUIT PEOPLE 1981” (Label Mark), instituted a suit against the Defendant, M/s Darzi on Call, for injunction restraining the Defendant from using…

| |

Cipla Limited v. Novartis AG and Ors.

Cipla Limited v. Novartis AG and Ors. 2017 (70) PTC 80 (Del) Respondents (Novartis AG and Ors.) filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the Appellant (Cipla Ltd.) from infringing its Patent. Along with the suit, Respondents had also filed an application for interim relief of temporary injunction during the pendency of the…

| |

CIPLA Limited  v. CIPLA Industries Private Limited and Ors.

CIPLA Limited  v. CIPLA Industries Private Limited and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 425 (Bom) Full Bench A Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay vide order dated 26th April, 2016 expressed the view that decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt….

|

Shanmugam vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.

Financial strength of a company, though relevant, cannot be the sole factor to determine dominant position of an enterprise. Providing free services cannot by itself raise competition concerns unless the same is offered by a dominant enterprise and is shown to be tainted with an anti-competitive objective of excluding competition/ competitors.

Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund and Anr.

Citation: 2011 LLR 867 Decided on: 24.03.2011 Court:  High Court of Madhya Pradesh Facts The Petitioner-company was remitting the provident fund contribution of eligible employees in accordance with the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1952 (‘Act’) and the Scheme and it was deducting provident fund contribution on two components of salary, i.e., Basic + VDA (dearness…