|

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

| |

Dr. Alloys Wobben and Anr. v. Yogesh Mehra and Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Dr. Alloys Wobben and Anr. v. Yogesh Mehra and Ors.; 02.06.2014; Supreme Court of India A Question of law came up before the Supreme Court on the issue of Multiplicity of proceedings for Revocation of Patent. The question was framed as follows, In case, there is already a revocation petition filed by an entity against…

| |

Sieckmann v. Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt

ByAnkit Rastogi

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…

|

LT Foods Limited v. Heritage Foods (India) Limited

ByAnkit Rastogi

LT Foods Limited v. Heritage Foods (India) Limited; 07.05.2014; FAO (OS) 3 of 2014 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court The Appellant filed a suit seeking towards infringement and passing off of it’s trade mark HERITAGE. Respondent was a registered proprietor of the Trade Mark HERITAGE for the same goods. Therefore, the…

| |

MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited

ByAnkit Rastogi

MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited 2019 (79) PTC 368 (Del) Delhi High Court Brief Facts: Plaintiff produced an audio-visual advertisement titled as “MRF NV Series present REVZ”. As per the Plaintiff, the Defendant, who was involved in the same business of manufacturing and marketing of tyres, had produced similar advertisement titled “Bazooka Radial Tyres”….

Leave a Reply