Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains NBFC From Using 'Zepto' And 'Zepto Finance' Marks
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an NBFC, Naman Finlease, and its directors from using the marks 'Zepto' and 'Zepto Finance' for their lending business. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ad-interim order in a trademark infringement suit filed by quick-commerce platform Zepto, represented by Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar. Zepto submitted that it is the registered proprietor of the word mark and device mark ZEPTO, a coined term with no descriptive meaning or connection to any...
Delhi High Court Restrains Havai Home Products From Using 'HAVAI' Mark in Havells Passing Off Suit
The Delhi High Court has restrained Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. and the proprietor of Advance Coolers from selling, marketing, advertising, or offering for sale electrical goods under the marks 'HAVAI' and its device forms. The court held that the marks are deceptively similar to Havells' registered trademarks. Justice Jyoti Singh granted the interim injunction in a suit filed by Havells India Limited. The Court found that Havells had made out a prima facie case of passing off. Havells, an...
Delhi High Court Refuses Stay On Encashment Of Bank Guarantees In Jodhpur Railway Station Redevelopment Dispute
The Delhi High Court has refused an interim plea under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking to restrain North Western Railway from invoking performance bank guarantees worth about ₹17.24 crore furnished under a ₹474.52 crore EPC contract for the redevelopment of Jodhpur Railway Station. The court held that the contractor had failed to establish the limited grounds on which unconditional bank guarantees can be restrained.Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the contractor had neither...
No Fresh Notice Needed After Award Is Set Aside If Arbitration Was Already Invoked: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on 16 July held that a party need not issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which marks commencement of arbitral proceedings) before seeking appointment of a new arbitrator after an arbitral award is set aside, if arbitration had already commenced through a valid notice. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the objection raised by Sumant Aggarwal and others and appointed Mr. Kapil Sankhla as the sole...
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains MDL Herbal From Using “HAJMOLA” Mark In Dispute With Dabur
The Delhi High Court on 8 July granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Dabur India Limited and restrained the proprietor of MDL Herbal Dhanvanatri Ayurvedic Mahamritunjay from using the mark “HAJMOLA” or any deceptively similar mark. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that Dabur had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. He observed:“In the opinion of this court, the plaintiff has made-out a prima facie case in its favour and against the...
Delhi High Court Rules Section 43(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Save Void Arbitration Clause
The Delhi High Court has recently held that a provision empowering courts to extend the contractual time for commencing arbitration in cases of undue hardship cannot, by itself, validate a contractual clause that is otherwise void under the law.Referring to Section 43(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court observed,"The provision does not validate or positively enact the enforceability of contractual time-bar clauses. It addresses only the limited question of whether a court...
Delhi High Court Protects “BATA” From Counterfeiters, Directs Flipkart To Remove Infringing Listings
The Delhi High Court on 8 July granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Bata India Limited, restraining the two individuals from selling or promoting footwear under the BATA trademark.A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also directed Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. to remove the infringing listings, holding that identical marks and identical goods are likely to cause confusion and constitute prima facie infringement and passing off. She observed: “The marks being identical and the rival...
Delhi High Court Upholds Award In Turner Morrison's Construction Cost Recovery Dispute Against NIRLAC
The Delhi High Court on 16 July held that Courts cannot interfere under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with an arbitral tribunal's plausible interpretation of a contract merely because another view is possible, while dismissing Turner Morrison Ltd.'s appeal against parts of an award. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan upheld the tribunal's interpretation of the Construction Agreement with the Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and...
Delhi High Court Restrains Astormueller From Using 'n:' And 'nu:beat' Marks In New Balance Trademark Suit
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Swiss footwear company Astormueller AG and its Indian subsidiaries from manufacturing, selling, or advertising footwear bearing the standalone "n:" logo or the "nu:beat" logo mark. The restraint will operate during the pendency of a trademark suit filed by New Balance Athletics Inc.Justice Jyoti Singh held that New Balance had made out a prima facie case for passing off. The court also found that the impugned logo marks were deceptively similar to...
Content Creators Move Delhi HC Alleging Misuse Of Facebook 'Edit Post' Tool To Trigger False Copyright Strikes
Two content creators have approached the Delhi High Court alleging that Meta's copyright enforcement system is being exploited by bad actors who manipulate Facebook's "Edit Post" feature to make stolen videos appear older. They claim the allegedly backdated posts are then used to file false copyright complaints against the original creators, resulting in repeated takedowns of their own content.While one creator says the alleged abuse led to the permanent disabling of his verified Instagram...
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award, Says Tribunal Cannot Revisit Merits After Passing Award
The Delhi High Court has held that once an arbitral award is passed, the arbitral tribunal becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the merits of its decision. Its powers thereafter are confined to correcting computational, clerical, typographical, or similar errors. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling while dismissing cross-petitions filed by Supreme Advertising Private Limited and Genus Power Infrastructures Limited. The court observed, "Once an award is rendered, the...