0

Three factors to be considered to identify a well known mark of a comapny: Delhi High Court lays down test and grants recognition to New Balance Inc.

Uncategorized


CASE NAME: NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS INC. V NEW BALANCE IMMMIGRATION PRIVATE LIMITED
CASE NUMBER: CS(COMM) 444/2022 & I.A. 11940/2023
DATE: 2.11.2023
CORAM: PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

Introduction
The Delhi High Court laid down a three step method of identifying whether a mark is unique to a company, and if it can be granted legal recognition as a well known mark. This judgment review explains what the three steps as per the HC are

Facts of the case:
The appellant, New Balance Inc., a US based athletics company has filed for injunction and damages against New Balance Immigration private limited for misuse of their marks, and are seeking protection of “New Balance” and “NB”. These marks have been in use since 1987.
The court laid down a 3 factor test for identification of a well known mark of a company, and took into consideration frequency of use, geographical extent of its advertisement, and the knowledge and recognition of the same.
After a detailed analysis of the same and comparison of the two marks used by the parties involved, the court concluded that New Balance inc., the US based company, can be granted legal recognition of their mark as well known marks and hence protected under Intellectual Property Rights.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Radhika Shekhawat

0

GAQM cannot use the title “Certified Scrum Master” until the Scrum Alliance trademark lawsuit is resolved, according to the Delhi High Court.

Uncategorized

Case name: Scrum Alliance Inc. V Prem Kumar 

Case number: I.A. 17424/2021 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)

Date: 21.11.2023 

 

Coram: C. Hari Shankar, J

 

Facts of the case: 

 

The Delhi High Court has prohibited the UK-based certification supplier, Global Association for Quality Management (GAQM), from utilizing the “Certified Scrum Master” mark and its associated logo until the resolution of a trademark lawsuit initiated by Scrum Alliance [Scrum Alliance, Inc v. Prem Kumar S and Ors].

 

Justice C Hari Shankar has preliminarily determined that GAQM’s mark and logo appear deceptively similar to those of Scrum Alliance’s “Certified ScrumMaster” mark and its logo.

 

The court was handling an injunction suit filed by Scrum Alliance against GAQM, alleging that the latter’s use of marks and logos resembled its own Certification Trade Mark (CTM), causing confusion in the certification services sector.

 

Scrum Alliance informed the court that in 2018, GAQM had agreed to darken its logo’s color and include a disclaimer on its website, clarifying the lack of association with Scrum Alliance. Dissatisfied with these changes and the disclaimer stating “Certified Scrum Master” as GAQM’s registered trademark, Scrum Alliance approached the High Court.

 

Scrum Alliance emphasized the identical nature of its marks and GAQM’s marks, asserting use in the same domain and client base.

 

GAQM countered, stating it had complied with the agreed logo color change and website disclaimer. It argued against complete restraint, asserting it did not represent Scrum Alliance or grant certifications on its behalf, and that Scrum Alliance couldn’t monopolize scrum certification rights.

 

Court’s analysis:

The court, in its analysis, highlighted the criteria for trademark infringement, stating unauthorized use in trade, identical or deceptively similar marks, and use in relation to registered CTM goods or services. After scrutinizing the marks, the court found minimal textual variation and comparable sun motifs, establishing a prima facie infringement case.

 

Consequently, the court permitted GAQM to use “CSM” as a word mark, but issued an interim injunction against using “Certified Scrum Master” and the related logo.

 

The case is scheduled for further hearing on December 15. Scrum Alliance was represented by Advocates Anirudh Bakhru, Yashwardhan Singh, and Vijay Laxmi, while GAQM was represented by Advocate Gagan Gupta.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Radhika Shekhawat

0

“Equitable Jurisprudence Prevails: Court Upholds Fairness and Consistency in Granting Employee Benefits”

Uncategorized , , , ,

Title: Secretary Administration Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam

 Limited vs Rashtriya Bijali Karmachari Union (INTUC) Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8015/2017

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Decided on: 24-01-23

Introduction:

In this case, the petitioner, who is the employer, has filed a writ petition challenging the award dated 02.12.2016 issued by the Industrial Tribunal in Jaipur. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the Industrial Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating the claim of the respondent-workman concerning his entitlement to a basic salary of Rs.595 on 19.04.1985. The central question is whether the employee is entitled to relief if the specified salary was not paid.

Facts:

In this case, the petitioner-employer challenges an award issued by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 02.12.2016. The petitioner argues that there is a jurisdictional error by the Industrial Tribunal in granting relief to the petitioner by holding him entitled to a basic salary of Rs.580/- per month, as no such reference was made for this specific relief. The petitioner contends that the Industrial Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference, and such an act is impermissible in the eyes of the law. It is emphasized that the respondent-workman did not pray for the relief of a basic salary of Rs.580/- per month, and there were no pleadings supporting such a claim. The petitioner relies on the Bombay Gas Company Ltd. V. Gopal Bhiva case, stating that the Industrial Tribunal lacks the competence to go beyond the terms of the reference.

However, the respondent-workman argues that the Industrial Tribunal’s award does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is asserted that the relief granted is incidental, permissible under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent contends that the Industrial Tribunal rightly considered the principle of equal pay for equal work concerning similarly situated employees and molded the relief accordingly.

The court, after hearing both parties, finds that the respondent-workman’s claim for a basic salary of Rs.595/- per month was rejected, and the Industrial Tribunal, after analyzing evidence, justified the grant of a basic salary of Rs.580/- per month based on the salaries of similarly situated employees. The court concludes that the Industrial Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction, and the relief granted was within the scope of the reference. The petitioner’s arguments regarding jurisdictional error and lack of pleadings are rejected, and the court upholds the Industrial Tribunal’s award.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment, the court rejects the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel, emphasizing that if the court has already settled a controversy regarding entitlement to a particular pay scale for similarly situated employees, it would be unfair to deprive the respondent-workman of the benefit simply because he was not a party in the earlier litigation before the High Court.

The court acknowledges that the Industrial Tribunal considered relevant factors, including pleadings and evidence, in reaching the conclusion that the respondent-workman was entitled to the granted relief. It emphasizes that the award took into account the settled issue regarding the pay scale in question. The court distinguishes a cited judgment (Suresh Chandra vs. General Manager, Raj. State Bridge & Construction Corporation) where the Labour Court’s jurisdiction was deemed to be exceeded. In the present case, the court finds that if the respondent-workman raised a dispute, and the Labour Court, after reference by the State Government, found the relief justified based on the treatment of similarly situated employees, it did not exceed its jurisdiction.

As a result, the court dismisses the writ petition, and no costs are awarded. The judgment underscores the principle of fairness and consistency in granting benefits to employees based on settled issues and comparable cases.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

Court Has No Need To Interfere When A Fair Inquiry Took Place Before Taking The Decision: Patna High Court

Uncategorized , , , ,

Citation: L.P.A No.534 of 2021

Decided on: 10-10-2023

Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Introduction:

The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order and judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in CWJC No. 1192 of 2020 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant-petitioner was a PDS dealer at village in Ward No. 11, village-Panapur in the District of East Champaran. Vide notice contained in memo no. 373 dated 04.10.2018 issued under the signature of respondent Sub Divisional Officer, Areraj, East Champaran, the appellant- petitioner was directed to file show cause within a period of three days with respect to the inspection report dated 04.10.18. On 8.10.2018, the appellant-petitioner submitted the representation with a prayer to exonerate him from all the charges. It has been indicated that due to illness, he could not maintain the up-to-date register. He enclosed medical prescription to support the case.

Again vide notice contained in memo no. 384 dated 13.10.2018 passed by Responden, he was asked to file reply. On 22.10.2018, the appellant-petitioner submitted reply reiterating his earlier version. hereafter, vide an order as contained in memo no. 03 dated 27.10.2018 issued by the respondent, the PDS license no. 01/2016 of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled. This followed CWJC No. 13921 of 2019 by the appellant-petitioner which was disposed of vide an order dated 15.7.2019 directing the respondent District Magistrate, East Champaran to dispose of the appeal within sixty days.

The case of the appellant-petitioner before the Writ Court was that no proper opportunity was given to him before the order for cancellation of PDS license was passed. The second submission was that no beneficiary ever complained against him. Further, the document submitted by him was not at all considered and in that background, the orders need interference.

Court’s analysis and decision:

In his show cause filed on 08.10.2018 and 22.10.2018, this non supply of enquiry report was never agitated and thus it was concluded that a false plea is being raised in the writ petition with mala fide intention of obtaining favourable order, which was also deprecated.

The Court has further taken note of the fact that the respondents gave opportunity to the appellant-petitioner before arriving at a conclusion for cancellation of the PDS license. Thus the court did not interfere with the orders dated 27.10.2018 and 29.11.2019 passed by the SDO, Areraj as well as the District Magistrate, East Champaran respectively.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

The High court of Patna quashed the FIR and also the issuance of summonses to the petitioner passed by the learned Judicial magistrate 1st class as stating that section 420 and 406 of IPC does not satisfied the basic ingredients in the present case

Blog, Uncategorized

 

 The High court of Patna quashed the FIR and also the issuance of summonses to the petitioner passed by the learned Judicial magistrate 1st class as stating that section 420 and 406 of IPC does not satisfied the basic ingredients in the present case 

Title-Nilesh singh silankee &others Vs The date of Bihar

Decided on- 23/11/2023

+CR.WJC No.276/2021

CORAM- HON’BLE JUSTICE MR.ANIL KUMAR SINHA

INTRODUCTION

The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing of the FIR bearing civil line police station Gaya, registered for the offence punishable under section 406,420 and 34 of IPC and further by way of amendment the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 02/03/2023.

FACTS

As per the facts The petitioner no.1 was engaged in the construction business who entered into a sub contract agreement with one developer namely Akarshan infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. For construction big stilt plus eight floor multi storied residential quarters for Bokaro steel officers housing cooperative society limited and where respondent no.2 entered into an investment agreement with the petitioner no.1 is order to earn profit where he invested around two crore in two month but invested only Rs 85 lakhs that too in 13 months but the investment agreement failed and as due to breach if the agreement the petitioner no.1 company incurred a huge loss where petitioner has to return the amount of RS 85 lakhs with 9% per annum amounting to Rs.1,09,73,000 to be paid to respondent 2 by the petitioner 1 within 15 months.The petitioner no.1 payed around 44 lakhs to Respondent no.2 through NEFT/RTGS and also paid some cash for settlement. In November 2019, the work of the house project stopped due to dispute between principal employer and the main contractor and a huge amount of firm 22 crores where held up by both. The petitioner no.1 company filed. Civil suit before the civil judge senior Division against both the principal employer as well as the main contractor but was withdrawn by the petitioner no.1 as there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the petitioner no.1 company and principal employer.where the Respondent no.2 lodge FIR against the petitioners and police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner on 31/10/2021 and learned Judicial magistrate 1st class took cognizance of the offence i. 02/03/2023.

As learned council for petitioner state that FIR Lodged in abuse of the process of law for recovery of money arising out of agreement between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no. 2 having arbitration clause and is purely civil dispute and also FIR is in question as it does not have a territorial jurisdiction to register the same as no money transaction has been taken place in gaya bihar not only the FIR is illegal but also same is registered with an evil design by yeh respondent no. 2 to harass the petitioner by abusing process of law.Whereas the Respondent no.2 as well as state council argued that the FIR disclose the offence against the petitioner who after entering into the agreement failed to pay the profit or return the amount as promised by way of settlement agreement and even learned Judicial magistrate 1st class has also taken cognizance of offences against the petitioner and as such the writ petition is fit to be dismissed .

THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

As the Hon’ble court after hearing both the parties and based upon the arguments advanced and the facts available in the record it emerges that the FIR and other contemporaneous documents that it is a case of purely civil nature arising out of contracts between the parties and no criminal offence under section 420 and 406 of IPC and since the basic ingredients of section 420 made 406 of IPC are not satisfied in the present case as well as issuance of summonses to the petitioner as passed by learned Judicial magistrate 1st class is not sustainable in the eye of law and continuance of the criminal case will amount to abuse if the process of the court.Accordingly the FIR is quashed and also issuance of summonses to the petitioners passed by the learned Judicial magistrate 1st class is also hereby quashed and in the result the application is allowed.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer,best civil lawyer

Written by -Prachee Novo Mukherjee

Click here to view the full judgement

1 2 3 … 61