Disruption of business of Defendant, not a ground to deny injunction
CASE LIST
- Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd.; AIR 1977 Delhi 41
Similar Posts
Commercial Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights have been given protection by nations due to the commercial value they have not only for their owner but also for the nation. An economy strengthens on the basis of two important components pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights, they are the Intellectual Property (hereinafter ‘IP’) vesting in the nationals of a country…
Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court resettling and affirming the settled principles of Law of Trade Marks
Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors. 2018 (76) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Plaintiff/Respondent had trade marks ‘CHYMORAL’ and ‘CHYMORAL FORTE’, used for a drug administered post-surgically for swellings that may arise and/or wounds that may arise. Plaintiff claimed use of the mark from the year 1988 through its predecessor in interest from…
Titan Industries Vs. Nitin P. Jain and Anr.
Titan Industries Vs. Nitin P. Jain and Anr. 2006 (32) PTC 95 (Del) The Plaintiff was incorporated in the year 1987 and its activities included manufacturing and marketing of watches, clocks and jewellery. The cause of filing the suit was the manufacturing and marketing of watches by the Defendants under the trade name/trade mark SONA…
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.
Case List: Jurisdiction in Cyberspace / Conflict of Laws
CASE LIST Sarl Louis Feraud International vs. Viewfinder, Inc. No. 05-5927-CV, 2007 WL 1598057, 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Compuserve, Inc. vs. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) [Text] Zippo Manufacturing Co. vs. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) [Text] Panavision International, L.P. vs. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998), aff’g 945…
Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt
Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt Case C-273/00, 2003 E.T.M.R. 37 Brief Facts: The Applicant intended to register an olfactory/smell mark, before the German Patent and Trade Marks Office, in Classes 35, 41 and 42 for which the Applicant provided the following description: “Trade mark protection is sought for the olfactory mark deposited with the Deutsches…