Delhi HC: Difference in Layout is of No Consequence if Essential Feature of Trademark Infringed  ||  Allahabad HC: Parliament has Responsibility to Restrain Criminals from Entering Into Politics  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Vacate Stay on Direction to Enforce CM's Speech Promising Rent Relief  ||  J&K&L HC: Judges Must Refrain from Making Derogatory Remarks Against Parties  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Should be Sensitive When Poor And Deprived Knock at its Doors  ||  CESTAT: Law Does Not Mandate Customs Broker to Physically Verify Address of Client  ||  Orissa HC: Appeal Can’t be Dismissed on Sole Ground of Non-Submission of Certified Order  ||  ITAT: Deposit of Banned Notes Received Out of Cash Sales During Demonetization Period is Valid  ||  ITAT: Arrangement Between Spouse Without Real Money Exchange Not Amount to Unexplained Investment  ||  ITAT: 100% Deduction U/S 80IC of IT Act allowable when Industry undergone Substantial Expansion    

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 2022 - All Rights Reserved