Bombay HC: Court Setting Aside Magistrate's Order for Police Investi. Won’t Lead to Quashing of FIR  ||  SC: Evidence by Power of Attorney Holders Can Only be Given of Facts Within Their Personal Knowledge  ||  Delhi High Court: Compensation Can be Awarded on Guesswork When it is Difficult to Prove Loss  ||  Madhya Pradesh HC: If Efficacious Remedy Available Before Arbitrator Writ Will Not be Maintainable  ||  Allahabad High Court: Can’t Decide Jurisdiction of DRTs Solely on the Basis of Location of Asset  ||  Delhi High Court: Fundamental to an Individual’s Identity to be Identified by One’s Name  ||  Ker. HC: Directions to Centre to Desist Telecasting Shows Found Violative of Broadcasting Regulations  ||  All. HC: Arbitrator to Decide Whether Claims Prior to Work Order are Covered by Arb. Clause or Not  ||  Kerala High Court: Schools Without Playgrounds Should be Closed by Government  ||  Bom. HC Sets Aside Reinstatement Order of Hindustan Petroleum Workman Who Slapped His Supervisor    

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


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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved