Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 To November 6, 2022

Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 1022 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049]NOMINAL INDEXMR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1022Sorin Group Italia S.R.L. v. Neeraj Garg 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1023FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1024DELHI ROZI ROTI ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. RAJESH AHUJA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1025Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1030KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1031Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. General Manager Northern Railways 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1032BRIJ MOHAN SEHGAL v. PANKAJ SANGHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1033SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1034ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1035Samata Party v. ECI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1036Saurabh Bhardwaj v. Delhi Police & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1037Vinod Kumar v. State and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1038SUMIT DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1039FDC LIMITED v. NILRISE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1040Babu Khan vs Union Of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1041AJAY KUMAR MITTAL v. UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1042Sotkon SP SLU v. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1043M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1045Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. SDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1046M/s Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. versus GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1047Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 10491. Trademark's Value Can Be Estimated In Monetary Terms As Proprietor Invests In Publicity and Building Reputation: Delhi High CourtTitle: MR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1022The Delhi High Court has ruled that apart from the primary function of identifying the source of goods, a trademark has an investment function as well, which is to preserve the investments made by a proprietor of a trademark in publicity and building up its reputation.A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said the trademark, thus, acquires a value that can be estimated in monetary terms. Although intangible, the court added, trademark is a valuable asset."The use of a trademark by other persons, which is identical or similar to the senior mark, would inevitably result in dilution of the senior mark and adversely affect its value," the court said.2. The Court Can Conduct A Preliminary Inquiry Under Section 45 Of The A&C Act To Decide The Issue Of Non-Arbitrability: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Sorin Group Italia S.R.L. v. Neeraj GargCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1023The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising powers under Section 45 of the A&C Act, the Court can conduct a preliminary inquiry to decide whether the dispute in question is arbitrable or not and to decide whether it falls within the scope of the agreement.The bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that a dispute falling within the 'excepted matters' cannot be referred to arbitration as the intention of parties in keeping certain disputes outside the scope of arbitration must be given effect to.The Court held that two commercial entities entering into an agreement and providing for different method of dispute resolution for different disputes may result in an anomalous situation where two disputes arising out of the same agreement would be decided by different forums, however, the choice of the parties is to be given supremacy and only disputes contemplated under the arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration and no other.3. Delhi High Court Vacates Stay on Vistara's 'Fly Higher' Campaign, Says Term Common To Aviation SectorTitle: FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1024Vacating its ex parte ad interim injunction against Tata Sia Airlines-owned Vistara's promotional campaign 'Fly Higher', the Delhi High Court has said the term 'Fly High' is common to the aviation sector.The airline had introduced the advertising campaign in 2018 as an extension of its tagline 'Fly The New Feeling'.On January 21 this year, the court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of a training institute in its suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Tata Sia Airlines. The Frankfinn...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 To November 6, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 To November 6, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers