Injunction

In case concerning breach of confidentiality and for infringement of copyright of the product Noxguard, a nasal spray. The Bombay High Court HELD that the plaintiff’s claim concerning the originality of the product had been recanted in a subsequent affidavit filed and thus could not prove that the defendant’s product was a copy of the plaintiff’s product.

Indian IPR

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   
Forgot password? Click here to reset
New User? Click here to register

Related Posts

Injunction

Infringement of trade mark and passing off – Held, Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad­interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondent­plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad­interim injunction or not

Indian IPR
Injunction

Where an attempt to confuse or deceive is discernible, the court leans in favour of finding the attempt to have been successful, rather than a failure. Dishonesty, in cases of intellectual property infringement, imperils the case of a defendant to no insubstantial extent. HELD connoisseur of the plaintiff’s alcoholic “BREEZER” would not partake of the defendants’ non-alcoholic “FREEZ mix”. The triple identity test, of similarity of marks, similarity of products and availability through common sources, is also, therefore, satisfied . Defendant restrained

Indian IPR