Allahabad HC: MPs, Judges and Ministers May Use ‘Hon’ble’; Civil Servants are Not Entitled to it  ||  Calcutta HC: Salary Withholding and Harassment Claims are Not Defamation Without Reputational Harm  ||  Gauhati HC: Officer Resigning Without New Govt Appointment Cannot Claim Pension under Assam Service  ||  MP HC: Attachment & Auction are Quasi-Judicial Duties of Tehsildar; Action Invalid Without Mala Fide  ||  Supreme Court: Fence-Sitters Cannot Raise Seniority Disputes Once Third-Party Rights are Settled  ||  SC: Medical Negligence Claims Can be Filed Against Deceased Doctor’s Legal Heirs Who Inherit Estate  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Must Be Considered if Speedy Trial Rights are Violated, Regardless of Offence  ||  Supreme Court: Article 226 Cannot be Used to Seek FIR Registration Without Exhausting Remedies  ||  SC: Dowry Deaths Remain a Grave Social Issue, Especially in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Karnataka  ||  Supreme Court Outlines Principles Governing Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 227    

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