Indian Performing Rights Society v. Gauhati Town Club & Anr. CS(OS) No. 559 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of Decision: 30th January, 2013 FACTS The Plaintiff is a Company and a Registered Copyright Society. The Plaintiff was established to monitor, protect and enforce the rights, interest and…
Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd. CS(OS) No. 2335 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Decided on: 10th October, 2013 The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark/label ‘TOLD MOM’ and or/any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘OLD…
T.V. Today Network Ltd. & Anr. v. Kesari Singh Gujjar & Ors. CS(OS) no. 1085 of 2005 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Decided on: 7th October, 2013 The Plaintiffs (T.V. Today Network Ltd. & Living Media India Ltd.) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants who were using…
Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.; AIR 2004 SC 3540 FACTS The Respondent (Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.) had registered domain names www.siffynet.com and www.siffynet.net which were similar to the Plaintiff’s domain name www.sifynet.com. Appellant (Satyam Infoway Ltd.) had considerable reputation in the market and had registered the name ‘Sifynet’ and various other…
Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. 2012 (49) PTC 54 (Del.) (DB) Radico Khaitan Ltd. (Plaintiff) instituted a suit for infringement of Trade Mark & Passing off against Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant). The disputes were over the marks ‘8 PM’ and ‘PALONE 8 PM, which were being used by the parties in…
Wipro Cyprus Private Limited v. Zeetel Electronics 2010 (44) PTC 307 (Mad) Key Words: parallel import, exhaustion, trade mark, FACTS: The Appellant in this case filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the Respondents from using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other phonetically similar expression in any media which can infringe the Applicant’s registered…
L’Oreal SA v. eBay International AG (C-324/09) [2011] R.P.C. 27 Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Europe, Trade Mark, Infringement, eBay, put on the market, reputation, online sale Legal Provisions: EU Trade Mark Directive: Article 5 – According to Article 5(1) of the Directive, the registered trade mark confers on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. In addition, Article 5(1)(a)…
Louis Vuitton Mallettier v. Abdul Salim and Others CS(OS) 90/2006 Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark FACTS: This suit was filed for protection of rights in the trademark “Louis Vuitton”, trademark/logo “LV” and the “Toile monogram” design. The plaintiff as the registered proprietor of the aforesaid marks/logo/monogram sought order against the defendants from selling,…
M/s General Electric Company v. Altamas Khan and Ors. CS(OS) No.1283/2006 Keywords: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark FACTS: The plaintiff, General Electric Co. filed a suit against the defendants to restrain them from misrepresenting themselves as authorized distributors of the plaintiff and from trading as GE Dehumidifiers or in any other deceptively similar trading style and…
CISCO Technologies v. Shrikanth 2005 (31) PTC 538 (Del) Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark Act Facts In this case, plaintiff CISCO was selling its products used in computer hardware since the year 1984 under the trademark ‘CISCO’ and was using a ‘Bridge Device’. It was submitted that the product of the plaintiff is…
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Others v. Santosh V. G. CS (OS) No. 1682/2006 Relevant Law(s): Section 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 Key Words: copyright, cinematographic works, parallel import, exhaustion PARTIES: The Plaintiffs (P), their associated and affiliated companies carry on business of film production and are the owners, co-owners, assignees, licensees of rights, titles and have interests…
Hollister Inc. v. Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd. [2013] F.S.R. 24 Full Text here Key Words: Parallel Import, Exhaustion Principle, Trade Mark FACTS H owned trade marks for medical products. M had imported H’s products into the United Kingdom and repackaged them for sale. In doing so, it had breached the requirement[1] that the importer give notice to…