Nash v. Inman [1908] 2 KB 1 (Contract for necessity for minor enforceable) FACTS: A tailor supplied 13 waistcoats and other things of that kind to a undergraduate student when latter was a minor. Student refused to pay for the goods supplied and tailor brought this suit against him for recovery of price of those…
Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. 01.07.2014; CS(OS) 2589 of 2013 before Delhi High Court Plaintiff was using the mark Officer’s Choice since 1988. Defendant was using the mark Collector’s Choice. In it’s application for registration of the mark, the Defendant stated that if Officer’s Choice and Minister…
Saunders v. Anglia Building Society [1970] 3 All ER 961 (non-est factum principle) PRINCIPLE: In order for the defense of non-est factum to succeed, the person must show that the transaction which he signed was essentially different in substance or in kind from the one which he purported to sign. Earlier it was thought that this defense could not…
Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. [1931] UKHL 2, [1931] All ER 1 (Mutual mistake as to the quality of thing contracted for and as to the fundamental assumption going to the root of the contract) FACTS: Lever entered into two agreements with B and S, first being service contracts by which they were inducted on board of…
Procedure prescribed in Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 67 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 is mandatory. Union of India Vs. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 (54) PTC 165 (Del) (DB) [Summary] CIPLA Limited Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhawan and Union of India through Ministry of Commerce Department of…
M/s. Jagdamba Impex v. Tristar Products Pvt. Ltd.; 05.05.2014; FAO 128 and 129 of 2014 before the Delhi High Court Plaintiff developed a teeth cutting machine. The machine was based on Industrial Drawing and the Plaintiff was the owner of the said artistic work. The Plaintiff was making commercial use of the said drawings by…