Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. (2004) 12 SCC 624

By

Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. (2004)||Case Study||Concept of Passing off


Facts

  1. A suit was instituted by the respondents for an order of injunction based on action for passing off restraining the appellants from using the mark "OCUFLOX".
  2. The said mark was allegedly used by the respondents prior to the appellants and also has been registered in various countries except India, though applied for registration.
  3. Although the ad interim injunction was issued by the District Court, the High Court vacated this order by observing that the goods of respondents were not being sold in India and the appellants were the first to introduce the product in India.

Issue

  1. Whether the High Court was right in vacating the injunction order.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. While determining the likelihood of deceiving or confusing the nature of the trademark, the Court shall consider the worldwide presence and reputation of the goods.
  2. However, the above consideration shall not devoid an Indian company or product if the Multinational Corporations or products do not intend to come into the Indian market.
  3. N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation Ltd. 1996- Passing off action is maintainable even against the owner of a registered trademark.
  4. In an action for passing off on the basis of the unregistered trademark, the Registrar or the Court shall consider.
  5. In the present case, if the same mark were to be used as a medicinal product in the same market, hence would cause confusion and deceive the purchaser which may lead to great harm by passing off the goods and their use.

Decisions

  1. For now, the injunction order is maintainable.
  2. The question as to who had introduced their product first is a matter of evidence, which the court shall determine.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more