You may also like...
-
-
https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1737411408415912106?t=wjLHNxWPyEa_YULblOR_Qw&s=08 As far as passing off is concerned, the defendant’s case is of honest and concurrent use, while the case of the plaintiff is based on willful misrepresentation of connection leading to cashing in on the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. Apart from the proof of confusion, in the exercise of power of grant of interim injunction, the Court is also concerned with balance of convenience. The use of the defendant claimed from the year 2007, the plaintiff’s date of entry in the relevant field, the time of the alleged start of the tortuous activity and the time of institution of suit, are also relevant factors in determining the balance of convenience. As a matter of fact, given the nature of business, being Security camera and equipments, if instead of disruption of status quo which is prevalent for a long number of years, if pending the suit, the plaintiff’s right can be safeguarded by grant of an order for the defendant to maintain accounts, then the balance of convenience would lie in favour of imposing such a condition. That being so, the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge that until disposal of the suit, there need not be any interim injunction and that the defendant can be permitted to continue to use its mark on a condition to maintain and submission of accounts on quarterly basis, cannot be found fault with. The Appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the Trial Court in matters such as Interlocutory Applications and substitute its own discretion unless and otherwise the Order of the Trial Court suffers from any illegality or perversity. In the absence of the same, when the learned Single Judge has refused to interim injunction pending the suit upon relevant considerations, and especially when the defendant has been put on terms, and when the suit being in the commercial division and trial being expeditiously conducted, we do not find any ground to interfere. 15. Accordingly, finding no merits, these Original Side Appeals shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.20884, 21006, 21558 and 21562 of 2022 are closed. (S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 19.12.2023 Index : yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : yes grs THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. grs O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.161, 162, 165 and 166 of 2022 19.12.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 20, 2023
-
[2/12, 20:37] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1227609983597940736?s=08 [2/12, 20:37] Sekarreporter: [2/12, 20:35] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/ThanthiTV/status/1227605942692241418?s=08 [2/12, 20:36] Sekarreporter: சேவை வரி செலுத்துமாறு ஏ.ஆர்.ரகுமானுக்கு, ஜிஎஸ்டி ஆணையர் அனுப்பிய நோட்டீசுக்கு இடைக்கால தடை – சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் #HighCourt | #ARRahman https://t.co/0TZX4aBQvS
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 12, 2020