Search Results for "trademark dispute"

162 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 162 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Permanent Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit. Defendant's marks 'Ultraplus Cement', 'Ultra HiTouch', and 'UltraPower' held deceptively similar to registered 'UltraTech' marks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The plaintiffs, UltraTech Cement Limited and another, filed a commercial IP suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, M/s. Shiv C...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Section 11 Applications to Appoint Arbitrator in LLP and Trust Dispute Over School Management Agreements. Court Holds That Arbitration Clause in School Management Services Agreement Binds Non-Signatory Trust Due to Interconnected Agreements.

The judgment concerns two arbitration applications filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by Edufocus International Edu...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'Café Madras' Restaurant Name. The mark 'Café Madras' held to be inherently distinctive and entitled to protection against use by a subsequent restaurant of the same name.

The plaintiffs, the Kamath family, have been running a restaurant named 'Café Madras' in Matunga, Mumbai since 1938. The restaurant has acquired a re...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Trademark Infringement Case — Restrains Use of 'SAMRAT' Mark for Atta. Registered proprietor of 'SAMRAT' mark in Class 30 entitled to interim injunction against phonetically identical mark for similar goods under Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The appellant, Prakash Agro Industries Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing food products including besan, pulses, wheat flour, and ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Husband to Lead Evidence First in Property Dispute with Wife — Order 18 Rules 1 and 2 CPC Interpreted. Husband Must Prove His Case as He Would Be Defeated if No Evidence Is Given, Given His Admission of Wife's Payment.

The case involves a property dispute between husband and wife. The wife filed a petition seeking a declaration that she is the sole owner of one of tw...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Quia Timet Action for Passing Off Based on Distinctive Bottle Shape of Vodka. Shape of a bottle can be protected as a trademark or get-up if it has acquired distinctiveness and is likely to cause confusion.

The plaintiff, Gorbatschow Wodka KG, a German company manufacturing Vodka, filed a quia timet action against John Distilleries Limited alleging that t...