Skip to main content

Recent landmark judgements on IP

 Recent landmark judgements on Intellectual property.


In the case of , Bajaj Electricals limited v. Gourav Bajaj & Anr.

Bajaj has various business set up across globe . It is a well-known brand and has goodwill. One of it’s business being bajaj electricals is also known for its durability and reliability of products . 

The plaintiff worked in Bajaj and also owned a store of Bajaj electricals and filed an application seeking for interim injunction against the defendant .

The defendant was accused of infringing certain rights of the company.

The defandant was not in any way related to the company and had open an business electrical store named “ Apna bajaj store & Bajaj excellent “ , he even had website under the name bajaj along with the logo of bajaj .

The plaintiff also raised a point against defendant and stated that Bajaj logo has been used registered under trademark .It is a well-known trademark and cannot be used unintentionally . The defendant has malicious intention to earn profit by using the name and logo and also depict it to thee public that the store is related to Bajaj company.

The court passed an interim injunction against the defendant as no one appeared on behalf of defendant.


Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali 


Defendant is a YouTuber and in one of his videos made derogatory statement about the parachute coconut oil 

Parachute coconut oil is a product that has gained goodwill and has captured a huge market . It is a well-known product among people of the country and thus got exasperated by the derogatory statements made by the defendant in his video

Plaintive accused the defendant of infringing their trademark right by using the name parachute in video 

Thus they filed an application for injunction against defendant In the Bombay High Court

The court held that the defendant didn’t seek any permission or authorisation before using their name in the video and thus was guilty of infringing trademark of the Plaintiff.

An interim injunction was passed against the Defendant and was even ordered to take down the video.


International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) vs. Iskcon Apparel Pvt. Ltd & Ors.


ISKCON is well known temple around the country . 

Defendant was accused of infringing the trademark as defendant sold garments to the public under the name ISKCON and by doing this defendant is trying to put down a message that he is related to ISKCON as they have a well-known trademark.

The court Held that as the plaintiff has a well known trademark ,defendant has infringed the trademark rights and also ordered the defendant to strictly refrain from using the Plaintiff’s mark.


In this case the defendant filed an application for permanent injunction against the defendant, Mr Suresh Kumar Sharma.

Plaintive has a well-known trademark , defendant was selling T-shirts under the name Lacoste Which amounts to infringement of trademark passing off his trademark

It was held by the court that defendant cannot sell T-shirts under the label Lacoste

The court ordered permanent injunction against the defendant.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree