Happy Dasara
Wish you all a happy and prosperous Dasara with regards
Posts
Showing posts from October, 2015
Trade Mark - Sec.34 and Sec.47 - First User rule & Abandonment of right for not using for a period of 5 years 3 months from the date of registration - Interim Injunction pending suit - Apex court held that since the Plaintiff-Respondents have alleged, and have prima facie supported with proof, that they had already been using their trademark well before the attempted user of an identical or closely similar trademark by the Defendant-Appellant, the former would be entitled to a temporary injunction, in light of the abovementioned ‘first in the market’ test. We find that the Plaintiff-Respondents have made out a prima facie case. The two other factors in an interim injunction, namely the balance of convenience and an irreparable loss, are both in favour of the Plaintiff- Respondents, given the potential loss of goodwill and business they could suffer should an injunction be denied. The Defendant-Appellant has been injuncted from using the mark ROFOL since 2005, after having launched products bearing the mark only in the previous year, so the balance of convenience is in favour of allowing the injunction to continue. - Appeal dismissed-2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Trade Mark - Sec.34 and Sec.47 - First User rule & Abandonment of right for not using for a period of 5 years 3 months from the date of registration - Interim Injunction pending suit - Apex court held that since the Plaintiff-Respondents have alleged, and have prima facie supported with proof, that they had already been using their trademark well before the attempted user of an identical or closely similar trademark by the Defendant-Appellant, the former would be entitled to a temporary injunction, in light of the abovementioned ‘first in the market’ test. We find that the Plaintiff-Respondents have made out a prima facie case. The two other factors in an interim injunction, namely the balance of co...
Suit for Specific Performance of contract - defendant pleaded that it is only executed as security for debt - already executed an agreement of sale infavour of third party - plaintiff never pleaded that he is always ready and willing to perform nor pleaded that he is ready to redeem the mortgage debt nor pleaded that he has got already redeemed the mortgage debt - as per sec.20 (2)(a) of Specific relief Act , the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of the contract and on the other hand it is a fit case for refund of the amount of Rs.4 lakhs with 18 % per annum, failing which Trail court decree would be confirmed - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
the suit for specific performance of contract.- in a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. - It was further agreed between the parties that the land in suit, mortgaged with defendant No.2/respondent No. 2 Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Nagina, would be redeemed by the appellant before execution of the sale deed. - since the answering defendant was in the need of money, he had taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.06.2004, on interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. The appellant specifically denied having received rupees four lacs, as alleged by the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that when respondent No. 1 made demand for repayment of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest, and created pressure, the answering defendant asked Pravin Kumar to make payment of Rs.1,80,000/...