In present facts of the case, Petitioner has been engaged in the business of marketing and manufacturing of footwear and fashion products and is the first user and proprietor of well-known trademark ‘LIBERTY’. On 01.04.2001, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Registered User Agreement in respect of trademark ‘LIBERTY’ in Class 25 for a period of three years.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court while considering the application under Trademarks Act have observed that it is well settled that a composite trademark is not to be dissected to determine whether there is any deceptive similarity with the impugned trademark and comparison has to be by taking the rival marks as a whole.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the substitution of Section 36 of the A&C Act with effect from 23.10.2015, the pendency of an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is no longer a bar for enforcement of an arbitral award.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have given observations on the issue of unstamped arbitration agreement. It has been held that an arbitration agreement, which is unstamped, does not exist and an unstamped contract, containing an arbitration agreement, would not exist as it has no existence in law and it has been observed that such agreement would be impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that for refusal of Registration under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, it would have to be shown that the marks themselves are confusingly similar to each other, and that, owing to the similarity in the marks and the goods and services which they cover, there is a likelihood of confusion among the public, or a likelihood of the public believing the existence of an association between the marks.
he Honble High Court dismissed the Petition as the Petitioner was willing to continue with the Agreement and was willing to pay the charges for the same as agreed.
The Honble High Court while allowing the Petition observed that a trademark being deceptively similar would be hit under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999 which prohibits registration of a mark deceptively similar to a mark which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the investigation report cannot be obtained under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013 if the Person seeking report is not concerned with the case in any manner or in other words, do not comply the mandate of Section 212(1)(a) to (d) of the Companies Act, 2013.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High court observed that ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process.
In present facts of the case the matter was compromised on the first day of hearing wherein the broadcasting of the plaintiff’s jersey was in dispute without the permission of the plaintiff.
