|

Disruption of business of Defendant, not a ground to deny injunction

ByVivek Kumar Verma

CASE LIST

  • Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.; AIR 1977 Delhi 41

Similar Posts
|

Case List: Winding Up

ByVivek Kumar Verma

A Admitted Debt u/s 433(3) of Companies Act, 1956 Alternative Remedy to be initiated before invoking just and equitable clause u/s 433 (f) B Bona fide dispute C Commercial Insolvency Creditor’s Objection to Winding Up Composite petitions under Sections 397, 398 and 433(f) D Dissolution of Partnership and Deadlock as grounds for Winding Up under Section…
| |

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.  Tosiba Appliances and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 394 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant officially adopted the name Toshiba Corporation only in 1984, it had registered (and was using) the mark “TOSHIBA” in a number of countries (including India) way back in 1953. Since 1953, the Appellant had acquired about 35 trademark registrations…

| | |

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

ByAnkit Rastogi

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…

| | | |

Kent RO Systems Ltd. and Ors. v. Amit Kotak and Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Kent RO Systems Ltd. and Ors. v. Amit Kotak and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 551 (Del) In this case, Plaintiff wanted the Hon’ble Court to hold that once the Plaintiff has lodged a Complaint before the Defendant No. 2 (Intermediary under the IT Act, 2000) with respect to the offending prouduct of the sellers, the…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *