Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Bombay High Court Denies Interim Reliefs in Design Infringement and Passing Off Case: Plaintiff Fails to Establish Prima Facie Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: June 5, 2023

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court dismissed an application seeking interim reliefs in a design infringement and passing off case, as the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, delivered the judgment, highlighting the crucial aspects of the dispute.

According to the judgment, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's design had already been published prior to its registration, thereby diluting its value and rendering it ineligible for protection. The court took note of the material presented, including social media posts and invoices, which indicated that the plaintiff's design was in the public domain before its registration on September 8, 2018.

Justice Pitale observed, "The defendant has shown that the plaintiff's design was already in the public domain and published prior to the date of its registration." The court further noted that a comparison of the designs showcased in the social media posts and the registered design revealed a prima facie similarity, casting doubts on the novelty and originality of the registered design.

The judgment emphasized that the plaintiff needed to demonstrate "something more" than mere similarity to successfully claim interim reliefs in a passing off case. The defendant presented a table of comparison highlighting differences in various aspects, such as canopy, packaging, and other features of the rival products. The court found that the plaintiff had not been able to establish this additional element, thus weakening their claim.

Justice Pitale stated, "The plaintiff has failed to make out a strong prima facie case about novelty and originality of its registered design. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot rely upon a mere trade variant to seek orders of interim injunction against third parties."

The court further clarified that the observations made in the order were limited to the disposal of the application, and the suit would proceed on its merits without being influenced by this decision.

Date of Decision: 5th June, 2023

 Atomberg Technologies Private Limited vs Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/05-June-23-Autoberg-Vs-Luker-Bomb-HC-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News