Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants  ||  Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically  ||  Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs  ||  Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders  ||  Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income  ||  SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law    

Del. HC: Section 76(3) TM Act Doesn’t Require Both the Rival Marks to be Registered CTMs - (23 Nov 2023)

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Delhi High Court while enunciating ingredients to arrive at a satisfaction that a Certification Trade Mark (CTM) had been infringed, has observed that S.76(3) of Trade Marks Act doesn’t require both rival marks to be registered CTMs, so long as both marks are registered and one of them is a CTM.

Tags : DELHI HIGH COURT   CERTIFICATION TRADE MARK   INFRINGEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved