No need to prove actual damage
CASE LIST
- Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr.; 2002 (24) PTC 1 [Summary]
- Prakash Glass and Rubber Works & Anr. v . Hindustan Safety Glass Works Pvt. Ltd.; 2006 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes 555
Similar Posts
Case List: Procedural aspects of Trademark Law
Procedure prescribed in Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 67 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 is mandatory. Union of India Vs. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 (54) PTC 165 (Del) (DB) [Summary] CIPLA Limited Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhawan and Union of India through Ministry of Commerce Department of…
Case List: Winding Up
A Admitted Debt u/s 433(3) of Companies Act, 1956 Alternative Remedy to be initiated before invoking just and equitable clause u/s 433 (f) B Bona fide dispute C Commercial Insolvency Creditor’s Objection to Winding Up Composite petitions under Sections 397, 398 and 433(f) D Dissolution of Partnership and Deadlock as grounds for Winding Up under Section…
V. Manicka Thevar Vs. Star Plough Works
V. Manicka Thevar Vs. Star Plough Works, Melur AIR 1965 Madras 327 Appellant filed a suit against the Respondent for permanent injunction from manufacturing and selling certain patterns of ploughs on the ground that the same was an infringement of the Appellant’s patent. The Appellant secured an interim injunction, but, on an application filed by…
Case List: Sales Tax
Composite Contracts and Applicability of Sales Tax on Photography M/s. Rainbow Colour Lab and Anr, vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (AIR 2000 SC 808) M/s. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. etc. etc. vs. Commissioner of Customs; (AIR 2001 SC 862) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India; (2006) 3 SCC 1 R. Mini Colour Lab v. Tamil Nadu…
Case List-IPR | Copyright | Governing Law & Jurisdiction | Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark
Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi & Patel Field Marshal Industries and Ors. Vs. P.M. Diesel Limited
Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi & Patel Field Marshal Industries and Ors. Vs. P.M. Diesel Limited (2006) 9 SCC 41 In this matter, there were two civil appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Facts: 1st Civil Appeal Appellant filed a suit against the Respondent to protect his copyright, trade marks and common law rights as…
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.; 30.05.2014; FAO(OS) No. 241 of 2014 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court Respondent was Regd. Proprietor of the mark ALLROUND claiming user since 2004. Appellant started using ‘ALL-AROUND PROTECTION’ for tooth paste and ALL ROUNDER…