KAHC010159832015_1
15 Dec 2017...
Search Results for "partnership firm registration"
680 result(s) found
Found 680 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition in Trademark Infringement Case, Upholds Trial Court's Refusal to Stay Suit Pending Rectification. Civil Court Has Concurrent Jurisdiction to Decide Infringement and Validity of Trademark Under Section 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.
13 Sep 2024The petitioners, M/s. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries and M/s. Sri Laxmi Vinayaka Rice Industries, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the...
- 274
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Copyright Infringement Prosecution — Registration of Copyright Not Mandatory for Criminal Action Under Copyright Act, 1957. Court holds that prior registration under Section 44 is not a prerequisite for launching prosecution under Sections 63, 63B, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
22 Oct 2024The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Dattatray Bapu Dighe challenging the framing of charges against him for alleged copyright i...
- 1107
High Court
Bombay High Court Considers Interim Injunction in Trade Mark Passing Off Dispute Involving 'Ajanta' Toothpaste. The Court Examines Claims of Prior Use Where Plaintiffs Alleged Sales from June 2002 and Defendants from December 2002.
7 Mar 2006Background: The dispute concerned the use of the trade mark 'Ajanta' for toothpaste. The plaintiffs claimed to be prior users of the mark for non-medi...
- 47
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Examines Challenge to Composite Show Cause Notice Issued Under Section 74 of CGST Act for Multiple Tax Periods
11 Dec 2025The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in real estate development and registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, filed a writ ...
- 40
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit — Plaintiff's Registered Mark 'STREAX' Protected Against Deceptively Similar Mark 'STREAK Street' Used for Hair Products. The court found the defendants' adoption dishonest and the marks phonetically similar, warranting restraint pending trial.
5 Mar 2025The plaintiff, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, Chandan an...
- 683
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint and Impleadment of Parties in Property Dispute — Amendment Sought Before Commencement of Trial Allowed as No Prejudice Caused. Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits liberal amendment before trial; impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC allowed for complete adjudication.
1 Aug 2014The plaintiffs, Sharayu Ramkrishna Mhatre and Anjali Deepak Karnik, filed a suit (Suit No. 1964 of 2012) in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaratio...
- 142
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark and Copyright Infringement Suit Involving Perfume Brands. Court restrains defendants from using marks deceptively similar to plaintiffs' registered trademarks and artistic logos, finding prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
7 May 2026The plaintiffs, Ahmed Perfumes LLC and M/s. Ahmed Al Maghribi Perfumes Trading LLC, both UAE-based companies in the perfume business, filed a Commerci...
- 128
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Trademark Infringement Case — Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad. The court found that the marks 'MERELANE' and 'MARICELL' are deceptively similar and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark 'MARICELL'.
21 Mar 2012The appellant, Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for infringement of its registered trademark 'MERELANE' and for passing off against the res...
- 83
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Family Property Dispute — Allegations of Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating Found to Be Civil in Nature. Dispute over partnership firm and film rights held not to constitute criminal offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC as no criminal intent established.
30 Nov -0001The case involves a family dispute among the Mehra family over a partnership firm and film rights. The petitioners (Umesh Mehra, Rajesh Mehra, Rajiv M...
- 83
