SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

Bombay HC Says Phonetic Similarity Not Enough for Alleging Trademark Infringement - (18 Apr 2016)

Bombay HC, while holding that mere phonetic similarity is not sufficient to warrant judicial interference, has refused to grant relief to owners of the London Dairy brand of ice cream who alleged trademark infringement by Indian candy-making company Parle Products.

Tags : BOMBAY HC   PHONETIC SIMILARITY   LONDON DAIRY   PARLE PRODUCTS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved