|

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Anr. Vs. Harinder Kohli and Ors.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Anr. Vs. Harinder Kohli and Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 56 Plaintiffs were registered proprietors for the word mark “HARRY POTTER”. Plaintiffs claimed that the movie “HARI PUTTAR” is an infringing variant of the trademark “HARRY POTTER”. Plaintiff’s Contentions: Defendants are passing off their film as that of the motion picture…

Zaheer Mauritius Vs. Director of Income Tax

WHAT IS COMPULSORILY CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE (CCD)? A debenture indisputably creates and recognizes the existence of a debt and till it is discharged, either by payment or by conversion, the debenture would essentially represent a debt. A Compulsorily Convertible Debenture is a debt which is compulsorily liable to be discharged by conversion into equity. Any amount payable by the issuer…

| | |

Case List: LIABILITIES OF ISPs AND INTERMEDIARIES

FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Sony Corp. of America vs. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) [Full Text] Fonovisa, Inc. vs. Cherry Auctions, 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996) [Full Text] CoStar Group, Inc. vs. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004)  Viacom International, Inc. vs. YouTube, Inc. 17 U.S.C Sec 512(c) Gordon Roy Parker v. Google, Inc.,…

| | |

Hindustan Pencils (P) Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co. and Anr.

Hindustan Pencils (P) Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co. and Anr. AIR 1990 Delhi 19 Plaintiff adopted the mark Nataraj with the device of dancing Nataraj in 1961 and got the same registered. Plaintiff’s Case: Plaintiff got to know somewhere in the middle of the year 1985 that the Defendants had registered a copyright similar…

| |

Tekla Corporation & Anr. v. Survo Ghosh & Anr.

Tekla Corporation & Anr. v. Survo Ghosh & Anr.; 16.05.2014; CS(OS) 2414 of 2011 befpre the Delhi High Court Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Copyright in Computer Programme. Defendant raised a defence of Copyright Misuse in the Statement and pressed for framing of issue on the same. Plaintiff contended that there is no…

Indo Rolhard Industries Ltd. Vs. M.K. Mahajan & Anr.

[2013] 178 CompCas 282 (Delhi) FACTS: A petition was filed by two shareholders for winding up of the appellant-company under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company court by the impugned order admitted the petition, directed the company to be wound up and, ordered the citation to be published in the “Statesman” (English)…

| |

Dharampal Premchand Ltd. v. Golden Tobacco Products

Dharampal Premchand Ltd. v.  Golden Tobacco Products 2007(34) PTC 633 (Del.) (DB) Decided on: 08.05.2007 Plaintiff had filed a suit for infringement of it’s trademark ‘BABA’, for breach of it’s copyright and for passing off. The Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of…

|

Colgate Palmolive Company and Anr. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Colgate Palmolive Company and Anr. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. FAO (OS) No. 396/2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Decided on: 10.12.2013 The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant for permanent injunction restraining disparagement of it’s product Colgate Strong Teeth along with an application for interim relief. FACTS The Defendant had…

|

The Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Gauhati Town Club & Anr.

Indian Performing Rights Society v. Gauhati Town Club & Anr. CS(OS) No. 559 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of Decision: 30th January, 2013 FACTS The Plaintiff is a Company and a Registered Copyright Society. The Plaintiff was established to monitor, protect and enforce the rights, interest and…

|

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd.; CS(OS) No. 2335 of 2010

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. A.B. Sugars Ltd. CS(OS) No. 2335 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Decided on: 10th October, 2013 The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark/label ‘TOLD MOM’ and or/any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘OLD…

|

M/s General Electric Company v. Altamas Khan and Ors.

M/s General Electric Company v. Altamas Khan and Ors. CS(OS) No.1283/2006 Keywords: Parallel Import, Exhaustion, Trade Mark FACTS: The plaintiff, General Electric Co. filed a suit against the defendants to restrain them from misrepresenting themselves as authorized distributors of the plaintiff and from trading as GE Dehumidifiers or in any other deceptively similar trading style and…