Bar and Bench’s Law School Photography Competition
Similar Posts
Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc v OHIM
Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc v OHIM (R708/2006-4) Board of Appeal Date of decision: 27th September, 2007 In 2004, the Applicant applied for registration “The Tarzan Yell”[1] through a sonogram. The sonogram/proposed sound mark is depicted herein below: The examiner did not consider the sonogram as an acceptable ‘graphical representation’ of a sound mark and relying…
flIPstaan: ‘ANGREZI MEDIUM’ AND THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING STRONG BRANDS
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3 – 27th September, 2020 “Aur Jahaan Tak Mhaari Beti Ka Sawaal Hai Wo To Trueford University Jaakar Rahegi, Nahi To Main Ghasiteram Todarmal Ko Par-Poto Nahi” – Champak Bansal, Angrezi Medium Introduction The above quoted dialogue could be loosely translated as “And so far as my daughter is concerned, she will…
Dharampal Premchand Ltd. v. Golden Tobacco Products
Dharampal Premchand Ltd. v. Golden Tobacco Products 2007(34) PTC 633 (Del.) (DB) Decided on: 08.05.2007 Plaintiff had filed a suit for infringement of it’s trademark ‘BABA’, for breach of it’s copyright and for passing off. The Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of…
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…
Gordon Woodroffe Ltd. Vs. Regional Commissioner EPF, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry
Whether the payment of ‘Saturday Allowance/Special Allowance’ will form part of the basic wages and accordingly be counted for the provident fund contribution.
Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd.
Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd.[1] Facts: Wheatley (W), the proprietor and licensee of a European patent relating to a threaded hole cutting device, appealed against a decision[2] holding that the patent was invalid on the ground of common general knowledge and accordingly should be revoked, and also that, in any event, there had been no infringement…