|

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
|

HAGUE CONVENTION OF 15 NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

ByVivek Kumar Verma

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…
|

Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce vs. Kannada Grahakara Koota & Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Citation: Appeal No. 13/2016 with I.A. No. 08/2017 Decided on: 10.04.2017 Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal Facts Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (Appellant/ KFCC) filed an appeal against the order passed by Competition Commission of India (“CCI“). CCI had imposed the penalty on Appellant and other two associations namely Karnataka Television Association (“KTVA“) and Kannada Film…

| |

Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor and Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor and Ors. 57 (1995) DLT 154, 1995 (32) DRJ 142 BRIEF FACTS: Plaintiff entered into a Contract with Defendant No. 5 to grant Defendant No. 5 sole and exclusive right to make a cinematograph film on her writings (based on Indian banditry and on her life). It was also agreed…

|

Meso Private Limited v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. & Ors.

ByAnkit Rastogi

  Meso Private Limited v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. & Ors. Commercial Appeal No. 362 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Date of Decision: 8th August, 2019 Facts of the case: Appellant was the registered proprietor of the marks Legend and Flirt in Class 3 for perfumes. The products on which the said…

| |

Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors.  – Supreme Court resettling and affirming the settled principles of Law of Trade Marks

ByAnkit Rastogi

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…

Leave a Reply