Trade Marks Injunction orders have not been complied with despite grant of number of opportunities and attachment orders – Court directed the Registrar of Companies to strike off defendant nos.1 and 2-companies from the Register of Companies June 5, 2019June 5, 2019 Indian IPR
Design Infringement of plaintiff’s registered – Design – Interim order, granted – Infringement of plaintiff’s registered design with respect to plastic containers. Issues framed. June 3, 2019June 3, 2019 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Similarity Change in the name of the restaurant as “MAHAB’S MOONROCKS” instead of “MOONRAKERS”. This change is not similar to plaintiff mark MOONRAKERS. June 3, 2019June 3, 2019 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Owner of trademark “Kake Da Hotel” challenged use of marks under name and style of “Kaka-Ka Dhaba”, “Kaka-Ka Restaurant” and “Kaka-Ka Garden” in Nashik. Interim directions issued. June 3, 2019June 3, 2019 Indian IPR
Copyright Does an architect, as the creator and legal ‘author’ of a building having artistic significance, have the right to object to the modification or destruction of their work by the owner of the building? DH Court held “the court held in broad terms that the destruction of a work does not constitute a violation of the rights under Section 57, and also restricted the scope of moral rights to those expressly codified under the Copyright Act,” But earlier HELD “There would therefore be urgent need to interpret Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in its wider amplitude to include destruction of a work of art, being the extreme form of mutilation, since by reducing the volume of the authors creative corpus it affects his reputation prejudicially as being actionable under said section. Further, in relation to the work of an author, subject to the work attaining the status of a modern national treasure, the right would include an action to protect the integrity of the work in relation to the cultural heritage of the nation.” June 1, 2019June 1, 2019 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Rectification petition is allowed – Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 11, 47, 57 – Prior and continuous user of the trademarks NORKIN/NORKIN PLUS -Trademark – Prior adoption – Applicant has been using since the year 1995 – Respondent no. 1 cannot claim to be proprietor of the mark. June 1, 2019June 1, 2019 Indian IPR
Passing Off Injunction for grant of marks being Phonetically or deceptively similar – Offending mark is `Naseer Apollo Pharmacy’, wherein the word `Naseer’ is written in relatively very small font – Trademarks are `Apollo’, `Apollo Pharmacy’ and `Apollo Hospitals’ – Passing off clearly made out June 1, 2019June 1, 2019 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Plaintiff has abused the process of law by filing this frivolous suit – Suit is rejected. May 30, 2019August 4, 2019 Indian IPR
Trade Marks Complaint of passing off entitles plaintiff to common law remedies and not statutory remedies – It can at best only be an invitation to offer and not an offer – Plaintiff does have an office in Gujarat – Forum convenience principle certainly tilts in favour of defendant – Plaintiff has not been able to show any part of cause of action accrued within jurisdiction of court – Revocation of leave acceded – Leave granted stands revoked – Main suit is dismissed May 26, 2019 Indian IPR
Consultadvo.com Client can directly CONSULT ADVO @ consultadvo.com April 12, 2019May 26, 2019 Indian IPR
