|

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

| |

Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

 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…
| |

Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr.  v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr.  v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors. 2018 (73) PTC 15 (SC) The Respondents were the registered owner of three trademarks, the common feature of all of which was the words “Field Marshal”. Out of the three, the first trademark was registered in 1964 and the second and third were…

flIPstaan: ‘ANGREZI MEDIUM’ AND THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING STRONG BRANDS
| | | | |

flIPstaan: ‘ANGREZI MEDIUM’ AND THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING STRONG BRANDS

ByAnkit Rastogi

SEASON 1 EPISODE 3 – 27th September, 2020 “Aur Jahaan Tak Mhaari Beti Ka Sawaal Hai Wo To Trueford University Jaakar Rahegi, Nahi To Main Ghasiteram Todarmal Ko Par-Poto Nahi” – Champak Bansal, Angrezi Medium Introduction The above quoted dialogue could be loosely translated as “And so far as my daughter is concerned, she will…

|

Case List: ENFORCEABILITY OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN INDIA

ByVivek Kumar Verma

A foreign judgment which is conclusive under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be enforced in India by: By filing an Execution Petition under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”)[1] (in case the conditions specified therein are fulfilled). By filing a suit upon the foreign judgment /decree.[2] In both…
|

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

ByAnkit Rastogi

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…

Leave a Reply