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
Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd.
Wheatley v Drillsafe Ltd.[1] Facts: Wheatley (W), the proprietor and licensee of a European patent relating to a threaded hole cutting device, appealed against a decision[2] holding that the patent was invalid on the ground of common general knowledge and accordingly should be revoked, and also that, in any event, there had been no infringement…
Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner vs. G4S Security Services (India) Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2011 LLR 316 Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana Decided On: 01.02.2011 Facts Respondent-company, for the purposes of determining its contribution under Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (“Act“), was taking into consideration the basic wage as given to its employees. The Petitioner claimed that rates of minimum wages which ought…
HAGUE CONVENTION OF 15 NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS
HAGUE CONVENTION OF 15 NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS (“CONVENTION”) Purpose of the Convention: Provides channel of transmission to be used when a judicial or extra judicial document is to be transferred from one state party to the convention to another state party for…
Kent RO Systems Ltd. and Ors. v. Amit Kotak and Ors.
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…
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (60) PTC 277 (Bom) BRIEF FACTS: The Petitioner had filed the present petition[1] being aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter ‘IPAB’) dated 4th March, 2013 vide which IPAB upheld the order of the Controller of Patents dated 9th March, 2012…
Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co.
Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co. 67 A. 392 (N.J. Ch. 1907) In the present case, the Plaintiff was the inventor of electrical instruments and processes and had a huge reputation. He once made a medication for neuralgic pains. Some individuals purchased the rights to the formulation of that medicine for US$ 5000. On November…