Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  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    

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