SC: Lessee Cannot Challenge Eviction After Landowner Withdraws Plea  ||  SC: Appointment Contrary to Recruitment Advertisement Constitutes Fraud on Public  ||  SC: Bribe Given to Intermediary Alone Insufficient to Establish Public Servant's Guilt under PC Act  ||  SC: AO Cannot Revive Assessment Concluded by Settlement Commission under Income Tax Act  ||  SC: Insurer's Office Location Alone can't Confer Jurisdiction for Claim under MV Act  ||  Calcutta HC: Mutual Consent Divorce Justifies Quashing S.498A IPC Cruelty Case under HMA  ||  Delhi HC: Mere 2-Year Delay in Arbitral Award does not Warrant Setting Aside  ||  Kerala HC: Courts can't Insist on Identifying Unknown Parties in John Doe Suits  ||  Supreme Court: Army Must Prove Disability Was Unrelated to Service to Deny Pension  ||  SC: Grant of Fishing Rights by Deed is a Transfer of Immovable Property, Qualifies as Lease    

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