This tag is associated with 3 posts

whether the importing the goods of the same company and selling the same for lesser price than the price offered by the company authorized person amounts to infringement of trade ?= Accordingly, the prayers made in IA No.7774/2011 are allowed and the defendants, their agents, servants and all other acting for and on their behalf are restrained from importing, exporting and dealing in printers and their ink cartridges/toners bearing the trademark SAMSUNG and also restrained from using the mark SAMSUNG in any manner in respect of promotional activities including on website. As far as other products are concerned as prayed in the application, as clarified in the order dated 17.11.2011, the plaintiffs are at liberty to take an action in accordance with law. The defendants‟ application being I.A. No.10124/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC is dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/- which shall be deposited by the defendants with High Court Advocates Welfare Fund within four weeks from today.

CS (OS) No.1155/2011 Page 1 of 156 .* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + IA No.7774/2011 & IA No.10124/2011 in C.S. (OS). No.1155/2011 % Judgment decided on : 17.02.2012 Samsung Electronics Company Limited & Anr. …Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand with Mr. Dhruv Anand and Mr. Nischal Anand, Advs. Versus Kapil Wadhwa & … Continue reading

whether the agreement between wife and husband anticipating problems can be enforceable ?=The said agreement was proved by the wife in her evidence before the Family Court. The said agreement is as under:- “We, Ashwini and Vibha are married and we confirm that we would like to continue loving and living with each other. We also confirm that we will like to live our lives in absolute harmony and perform all the responsibilities of a husband and wife. We, commit to be faithful in our married life, provide financial, emotional and mental support in all times. In case of any breach of trust on account of being unfaithful, Ashwini would provide his wife, Vibha Mehta. i) Continue to live on the 2nd Floor of D-196/D-197, Defence Colony, New Delhi, freely. ii) Provide financial monthly support of `1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to Vibha. He will be responsible in bringing up the children and provide for them.

FAO Nos.448/2011 & 521/2011 Page 1 of 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17th February, 2012 + FAO 448/2011 % ASHWANI MEHTA ….Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Adv. Versus MRS. VIBHA MEHTA ….. Respondent Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Adv. with Mr. Mustafa Arif & Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, … Continue reading

trademarks= grant of injunction against use of the trade name “MORGARDSHAMMAR” and the trademarks “MORGARDSHAMMAR LABEL” and “MH ARROW DEVICE” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the trademarks/ CS (OS) No. 863/2010 Page 69 of 69 trade name “MORGARDSHAMMAR LABEL” and “MH ARROW DEVICE” and “MORGARDSHAMMAR” of the plaintiff= Defendant No. 1 has to blame itself for the revocation of the license. Till the time defendant No.1 maintained the share holding of the plaintiff above 25%, plaintiff has permitted the defendant No. 1 to use the trade mark/trade name. It is only when defendant No. 1 reduced the share holding of the plaintiff in defendant No. 1 to less than 25%, plaintiff has exercised its option of revoking the license.

CS (OS) No. 863/2010 Page 1 of 69 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 863/2010 * Reserved on: 5th September, 2011 Decided on: 2nd January, 2012 MORGARDSHAMMAR AB ……….PLAINITFF Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhixit Singh, Mr. A. Singh Gyani and Mr. Qazi Riaz Masood, Advs. Versus … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,333 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com