Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Law Treats All Equally, State Cannot Gain Undue Benefit from Delay Condonation  ||  SC: SARFAESI Act Was Not Applicable in Nagaland Before its 2021 Adoption, Dismisses Creditor’s Plea  ||  SC: Lis Pendens Applies To Money Suits on Mortgaged Property, Including Ex Parte Proceedings  ||  Kerala HC: Civil Courts Cannot Grant Injunctions in NCLT Matters and Such Orders Can Be Set Aside  ||  Bombay High Court: Technical Breaks to Temporary Employees Cannot Deny Maternity Leave Benefits  ||  NCLAT: Appellate Jurisdiction Limited to Orders Deciding Parties’ Rights, Not Procedural Directions    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved