Design | Intellectual Property Rights | Passing Off | Trade Mark

Gorbatschow Wodka K.G. v. John Distilleries Limited

2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom) Brief Facts: The Plaintiff was a wholly owned subsidiary of Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG, headquartered in Germany. Plaintiff had acquired the registration of the shape of its bottle used for selling Vodka in a number of countries. In 2008, Plaintiff applied for the registration of the shape of its…

Disparagement | Intellectual Property Rights | Uncategorized

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part II

In our last post on the above subject captioned matter, we had covered the Brief Facts of the matter, the decision of the Learned Single Judge in the present matter and the key takeaways from the said decision. Pertinently, the Learned Single Judge had granted a temporary injunction towards the removal of said video. The…

Disparagement | Intellectual Property Rights | Uncategorized

Permissible Limits of Conducting Product Reviews by Social Media Influencers (Decoding Marico v. Abhijeet Bhansali): Part I

The Bombay High Court in earlier part of the year 2020, has dealt with the case of permissible limits of action of viewers who review products or services. The decision is in the case of Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali[1] wherein the Learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi restrained by an order…

Intellectual Property Rights | Personality Rights | Uncategorized

Shilpa S. Shetty v. Magna Publications Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Shilpa S. Shetty v. Magna Publications Co. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2001 Bom 176 Brief Facts: Plaintiff was a film actress. Defendant No.1 was a publishing house. Defendant No. 2, director of the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No. 3 editor of a Film Journal published by Defendant No. 1 titled “Stardust”. Defendant No 4 was…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark

Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd.

Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd. 2014 (57) PTC 617 (Bom) Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘FEVICOL MARINE’ and various other marks using the words ‘FEVICOL MARINE’. Plaintiff’s Registrations: Defendant was using the mark ‘JIVANJOR MARINE’ for identical products. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for…

Intellectual Property Rights | Trade Mark

Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson and Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.

Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson and Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Bombay High Court (Full Bench) Date of decision: 23.12.2014 Issue: “Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff’s trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the…

Corporate Law

In Re: Indusind Bank Ltd.

CITATION: (2004) 4 CompLJ 394 Bom DECIDED: May 6, 2004 BEFORE: Bombay High Court FACTS A company petition was filed by the petitioner IndusInd Bank Limited for sanction of Scheme of Arrangement between Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (‘transferor company’) and IndusInd Bank Limited (‘transferee company’) and their respective members and creditors. The Regional Director’s main objection was that…

Banking Law

Mr.Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Well, you read the Dashrath Rupsingh Case of Supreme Court on territorial jurisdiction in cheque bouncing case . Now read the summary of this Bombay High Court’s judgment delivered on August 25, 2014 which held that all the cases of cheque bouncing, where the cheque was payable at all branches of the bank, can be filed in the court within whose local jurisdiction the nearest available branch of Drawer’s bank was situated.