Posts

Showing posts from October, 2015

Happy Dasara

Image

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

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 injuncte…

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

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/- to the  plaintiff.   It  is  further  alleged  that after said payment was made to the plaintiff on 10.11.2005 by Pravin  Kumar,the alleged agreement dated 21.06.2004, which was …