Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

Del. HC: Plea of Invalidity Essential to Challenge Validity of Mark U/S 124 of TM Act - (06 Nov 2023)

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Delhi High Court has held that for Section 124(1) of Trade Mark Act, to apply in a case where plaintiff seeks to challenge validity of the defendant’s mark, the defendant must raise Section 30(2)(e) defence by citing the registration of its mark as a defence to infringement.

Tags : DELHI HIGH COURT   TRADE MARK   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved