P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Haldiram Bhujiawala and Ors. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (19 Oct 2015)

Deciphering Haldiram: Court finds needle in bhujia

MANU/DE/3333/2015

Intellectual Property Rights

In a convoluted and long-standing case involving a devolved Haldiram brand, the Delhi High Court assessed plethoric familial disputes, sprinkled with trade mark claims, to come to the conclusion that the trial court was correct in its determination that Appellants’ use of the brand Haldiram Bhujiawala had caused irreparable harm to the Respondents’ business ‘Haldiram’. The Court dismissed contentions that the trial court had conducted a ‘mini-trial’ in the grant of temporary injunction at an interim stage of legal proceedings.

Relevant : Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad and Ors.MANU/SC/0350/2001 Wander Limited and Anr. v. Antox India Pvt. Limited MANU/SC/0595/1990 ALKEM Laboratories Limited v. Mega International (Private) Limited MANU/DE/0957/2007

Tags : HALDIRAM   INTERIM INJUNCTION   MINI TRIAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved