MP HC: Wife’s Refusal to Have Physical Relationship With Husband, Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Ori. HC: Re-Imprisonment of Prematurely Released Convict Can’t be Ordered Unless Release Challenged  ||  Ker. HC: IO Mixes Contraband Found in Separate Packs, Bail Granted to Accused Booked Under NDPS Act  ||  Tripura High Court: Accused Not Entitled to Bail on Mere Filing of Chargesheet  ||  Guj. HC: Student Allowed to Write Exams, Shortage of Attendance Condoned  ||  Ker. HC: AO Can’t Reopen Assessment in Block Period of 6 Years if Absence of Incriminating Materials  ||  Tel. HC: Existence & Validity of Arb. Agreement Must be Determined u/s 11(6) of A&C Act by Court  ||  Tel. HC: While Releasing Amount Under S. 19 of MSME Act, Reasons Must be Assigned by Courts  ||  Ker. HC: Settling Serious Crimes Like Murder, Rape Would Seriously Impact Society  ||  Del. HC: Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal Can be Extended by Court, Even After its Expiry    

Sumeet Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Dilip Kumar Jain and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (28 Oct 2015)

Bombay High Court lends a helping hand to ‘Sumeet’


Intellectual Property Rights

The Bombay High Court held that the Defendant’s use of the mark ‘Sumeet’ was in infringement of the trade mark registered by the Plaintiff. Defendant’s claims that its similar mark ‘Sumeet sassaki’ was inspired by their deceased son were not accepted by the Court for not explaining why Defendant had modeled ‘Sumeet’ identically to the Plaintiff. It found inconsistencies and possible fabrication in the evidence produced, purporting to show assignment of mark to the Defendant.

Relevant : Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v India Stationery Products Co & Anr. MANU/DE/0003/1990 Winthrop Products Inc v Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.MANU/MH/0094/1997


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved