Judgments – Blue Horse Decor

M/S GALAXY FOOTWEAR vs. OSWAL INDUSTRIES

bluehorse — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 05:38:37 +0000

While the matter was pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the learned counsel for the first respondent filed IA/104/2000 for discharging him from the case and the High Court directed notice to the applicant. By endorsement dated 20.11.2001 from the High Court, it is seen that the notice sent to the applicant returned un-served with the endorsement ‘Locked’. Fresh notice was ordered by the High Court on 4.11.2003, the service of which could not be affected. The notice send from the Registry of the Appellate Board to the applicant also returned with remarks that ‘Galaxy Footwear is closed for long’, who is the applicant herein. In view of the same, no option is left to us but to dismiss the TRA/108/2004/TM/DEL for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

MUZAMMIL REHMAN vs. J WALTER THOMPSON COMPANY LIMITED (J.W.T) & ORS

bluehorse — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 05:37:38 +0000

It is clarified that the issues since the plaintiff has not quantified damages suffered on account of each of the defendants and has claimed damages jointly from the defendants, in the event of the plaintiff failing to prove entitlement to damages jointly from the defendants, even if the plaintiff is found entitled to damages from one or more of the defendants, the plaintiff would not be entitled thereto.

Shobhan Lal Jain Vs. The Drugs Controller and Ors

bluehorse — Wed, 15 Mar 2023 05:36:17 +0000

In view of this Court also the cosmetic being now manufactured by R-2 on a license given by R-1 cannot be called a spurious cosmetic as defined under Section 17-D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 inasmuch as it is not being manufactured under the name which belongs to another cosmetic and moreover in view of the interim injunction of the Madras High Court as well as the interim orders of the Delhi High Court and in the light of the undertaking given by the Petitioner before the Delhi High Court, for the purposes of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the name JOLEN presently does not belong to the Petitioner nor is it an imitation or substitute of any cosmetic or resembles cosmetic in a manner likely to deceive or bear upon its label or container in the name of another cosmetic as contemplated under Section 17-D(b) of the Act. In view the interim order of this Delhi High Court as well as the Madras High Court. Legally speaking, the cosmetic being manufactured by R-2 as a licensee of R-3, is not a spurious cosmetic and therefore, the license has rightly been given to R-2 by R-1 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. However, this Court refrains from saying anything on the relative merits of the parties pertaining to their trade mark dispute as the matter is subjudice before the Delhi High Court as well as the Madras High Court and strictly speaking that is also not the lis here.