| | |

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…

| |

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.

|

Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce vs. Kannada Grahakara Koota & Ors.

Citation: Appeal No. 13/2016 with I.A. No. 08/2017 Decided on: 10.04.2017 Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal Facts Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (Appellant/ KFCC) filed an appeal against the order passed by Competition Commission of India (“CCI“). CCI had imposed the penalty on Appellant and other two associations namely Karnataka Television Association (“KTVA“) and Kannada Film…

|

Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors.

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…