|

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…

|

Rules for Interpretation of Contracts: Pre-Contractual Documents/Draft Agreements

Antecedent Agreements A concluded antecedent agreement may be relied upon in interpreting a later contract in pursuance of that agreement.  However, an antecedent agreement may be considered only on the basis of its particular facts and circumstances. Pre-Contractual Documents/Draft Agreements A concluded contract may be preceded by multiple drafts. Draft agreements may even be signed. Draft…

|

RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ANR. v. ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD.

RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ANR. v. ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD. 10.09.2014 In the High Court of Delhi FAO (OS) No. 281 of 2014 The Question “Whether a registered proprietor of a trademark can sue another registered proprietor of a trademark alleging deceptive similarity ?” came up before consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court….

|

Manohar Singh and Sons Vs. Raksha Karamchari Coop. Gr. H. Soc. and Anr.

Manohar Singh and Sons Vs. Raksha Karamchari Coop. Gr. H. Soc. and Anr. MANU/DE/3478/2009 FACTS Respondent-cooperative society (“R“) floated a tender for construction of flats, and the work was awarded to petitioner-contractor (“P“) through an agreement . The Architect certified P’s final bill for an amount of Rs. 9,47,043 along with a sum of Rs….

| |

Wipro Cyprus Private Limited v. Zeetel Electronics

Wipro Cyprus Private Limited v. Zeetel Electronics 2010 (44) PTC 307 (Mad) Key Words: parallel import, exhaustion, trade mark, FACTS: The Appellant in this case filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the Respondents from using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other phonetically similar expression in any media which can infringe the Applicant’s registered…

|

N.R. Dongre and Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corpn. and Anr.

N.R. Dongre and Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corpn. and Anr.  1996 PTC (16) 583 (SC) FACTS The Whirlpool Corporation, i.e. the Plaintiff No. 1 is a multinational corporation incorporated in U.S.A. and had an established business in the manufacture, sale, distribution and servicing of washing machines of all kinds. Plaintiff No. 1 is the successor of…