Latest news with #AjayDigpaul
Hindustan Times
09-08-2025
- Hindustan Times
Harassing fellow constable's wife undermines mutual trust in forces: Delhi HC
Outraging the modesty of a fellow constable's wife can severely undermine the mutual trust essential for armed forces functioning, the Delhi high court has said while upholding the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) personnel found guilty of such misconduct. The Delhi high court A bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul in their ruling delivered on Friday said that the incident struck at the very foundation of brotherhood, which unites the members of the force and is indispensable for maintaining morale and cohesion within the units. The dismissal had stemmed from a complaint by another BSF constable to the unit's Commandant in September 2003, alleging that the man misbehaved with his wife and took away some money. A summary security force court (SSFC) found him guilty of committing theft in a dwelling house and outraging a woman's modesty under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to dismissal from service, in February 2004. The Reviewing Officer— Sector Headquarter Jaisalmer's Deputy Inspector General, a month later, upheld the conviction for outraging modesty but set aside the conviction on the charge of theft. He then approached the high court seeking reinstatement in service. In his petition, the man had asserted that he was subjected to a trial before the SSFC, despite being diagnosed with acute psychosis by the civil and BSF medical authorities. He further submitted that his right to be defended during the trial was effectively denied since he was placed under close arrest, served the chargesheet and directed to nominate a defence representative by the next day and his condition restrained him from effectively exercising his rights. He also asserted that the trial was without jurisdiction since the alleged act constituted a civil offence which could be tried by a criminal court and not SSFC. While the Centre represented by standing counsel Bhagwan Swarup Shukla opposed the petition contending that the trial before the SSFC was in accordance with the procedure, established under the BSF act and the rules and no rights were violated. He further submitted that the plea of unsoundness was an afterthought since he remained on duty and in service despite his medical condition and was neither declared insane or recommended for invalidation on medical grounds. However, the court refused to reinstate him, saying 'Having regard to the nature of the offence for which the petitioner was convicted, namely outraging the modesty of the wife of a fellow Constable within the same Battalion, we cannot ignore the grave implications such conduct has on the integrity, discipline, and mutual trust essential to the functioning of any armed force. The incident in question strikes at the very foundation of brotherhood that binds members of the Force and is indispensable for maintaining morale and cohesion within units stationed.' In its 27-page verdict, the court further held that failure to take strictest disciplinary action against an offence committed within the living quarters and targeting a serving BSF personnel's immediate family would not only send the wrong message but also undermine the institutional discipline of the armed forces. 'If such acts, committed within the living quarters and directed towards the immediate family members of a serving BSF personnel are not met with the strictest disciplinary response, it would send an entirely wrong message and question the institutional discipline that the Force is mandated to uphold,' the judgement emphasised.
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi HC upholds order to restrain Rajasthan Aushdhalaya from making and selling medicines under Liv-333 name
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The division bench of the Delhi High Court has upheld its single judge order to restrain Rajasthan Aushdhalaya from making and selling medicines under the name Liv-333 or any other name similar to global health companies' Himalaya Global Holdings and Himalaya Wellness Co's trademark Liv.52, which is used as a liver tonic.A bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul said that 'we, in fact, are of the view that the adoption, by the appellant (Rajasthan Aushdhalaya), of a mark which was a portmanteau of 'Liv' as an abbreviation for liver and a number thereafter, cannot be treated as innocent,", adding that the obvious intent appears to have been to come close to the mark 'Liv.52' which was being used by the respondent (Himalaya).Moreover, the registration, by Himalaya, of the mark 'Liv.52', dates back to July 1957, it said. 'Given the reputation that the mark has amassed over time, there is every likelihood of other infringers having themselves adopted identical, or similar, marks, to capitalize on the respondents' goodwill and reputation. The mere fact that other infringers are also coexisting cannot, quite obviously, provide a license to the appellant, to infringe,' the order the division bench sought response from the Himalaya companies on whether cost and damages can be imposed on Rajasthan Aushdhalaya, as directed by the single Himalaya companies were manufacturing and marketing tablets under Liv.52 trademark and the medicine was used as a natural remedy for improving liver function and were sold in various forms and preparations, such as Liv.52 syrup, Liv.52 tablets, Liv.52 DS tablets, Liv.52 HB capsules, Liv.52 protec liquid and Liv.52 furglow claimed to have come to know in January last year of several listings of the mark Liv-333, as well as the logo by Rajasthan Herbal International under which the latter was selling preparations for liver treatment in capsule and tablet cease and desist notice, Himalaya moved the court to restrain Rajasthan Aushdhalaya from using the mark. In May last year, the single judge bench while issuing summons granted ex parte restraint order asking Rajasthan Aushdhalaya from using the mark 'Liv-333', or any other mark which was identical or deceptively similar to the respondents registered 'Liv.52' trademark.
Indian Express
02-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Delhi HC upholds injunction order stopping luggage-maker VIP from using ‘Carlton' mark
A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed appeals challenging an injunction order against Indian luggage manufacturer VIP Industries from using the mark 'Carlton'. A division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul upheld a single judge's order of July 17, 2023, ruling that Carlton Shoes Limited (CSL) had 'goodwill of the CARLTON mark, as used by it in India, prior to the commencement of user of the CARLTON mark by VIP in 2006'. A single judge order of July 17, 2023, dealing with cross suits of infringement by Carlton Shoes Ltd (CSL), incorporated in UK in 1992, and VIP Industries had injuncted VIP from using the 'Carlton' mark in respect of goods covered by Class 18 and had rejected VIP's application for a similar injunction against CSL. Class 18 pertains to leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, and not included in other classes. In 2019, VIP had issued a legal notice to CSL, objecting to the use of 'Carlton' for bags, which VIP claimed to have been using for its bags and suitcases and other such items since 2006. VIP had contended that it had been using the 'Carlton' mark for luggage, or travel luggage, and enjoyed the goodwill in the said mark for over 15 years, whereas CSL had never used the 'Carlton' mark for luggage till 2019. It was argued that the goodwill earned by CSL in the 'Carlton' mark, by then, was only with respect to its use for footwear, and the goodwill earned by CSL by such use would not entitle them to maintain an action for passing off against VIP, even though there were some stray sales, by CSL, of Carlton purses and handbags. Both CSL and VIP possess registrations of the mark 'Carlton' in Class 18. The bench, deciding the appeals, framed the legal question: whether goodwill, for the purposes of determining a 'passing off' action, is of a mark, or of a mark in respect of particular goods or category of goods. The bench ruled that 'the goodwill that is required to be established in order to sustain a claim of passing off is goodwill in the mark, and not goodwill in the mark as used for any particular goods or services.' Noting that the finding that 'CSL having proved the existence of goodwill and reputation of the CARLTON mark, as used by it for more than 13 years prior to the commencement of user of the CARLTON mark by VIP for travel luggage, therefore, does not brook interference,' the court dismissed VIP's appeals.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
01-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Delhi High Court revives Crocs' plea against Indian footwear companies
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday revived a batch of pleas by the US company Crocs Inc against several Indian footwear companies for allegedly copying the unique shape and design of its footwear. A division bench of the Delhi High Court overturned a 2019 order of the single judge dismissing Crocs' batch of pleas against Bata India, Relaxo, Liberty and others. A bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul revived the US company's claims concerning the recognisable design and form of its foam clogs and ordered that the cases should now be sent to a single-judge bench for a full hearing on their merits. "We are constrained, therefore, to hold that, in declining to do so, and dismissing Crocs' suits as not maintainable, the learned Single Judge, in our respectful view, erred in law," the division bench of the Delhi HC said. Crocs had moved the Delhi High Court, arguing that several Indian footwear companies had passed off their products by imitating the distinct look of its foam clogs. The US company alleged that firms such as Bata India, Liberty Shoes, Relaxo Footwear, Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising copied the shape and perforated pattern of its clogs, which it claimed qualifies as a shape trademark. Crocs had filed several lawsuits asking the court to permanently stop these companies from passing off their products as its own. Separate suits for design infringement under the Designs Act, 2000 were also filed, based on Crocs' registered designs. These cases were heard together. On 18 February 2019, a single judge dismissed all six passing-off suits at the initial stage and held that the claims were not maintainable because Crocs was trying to get ongoing trademark protection under common law for a design that had already received temporary protection under the Designs Act. On the issue of novelty and originality, the court had then said that the designs registered by Crocs were neither original nor novel, as they were not significantly distinguishable from products already existing in the market, and were mere 'trade variants' of a sandal, which did not deserve any exclusivity or monopoly.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi High Court revives Crocs' passing off petition against Bata, Liberty, others
The Delhi High Court has reinstated Crocs Inc's lawsuit against Bata India and other Indian footwear brands. Crocs alleges these companies are imitating the design of its foam clogs. The court overturned a previous order dismissing Crocs' petitions. It stated Crocs deserves a chance to prove its claims of passing off. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The division bench of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday revived Crocs Inc. USA's passing off petition filed against domestic footwear companies Liberty Shoes and others for allegedly manufacturing and selling footwear identical in shape and design to that of the Crocs' unique trade dress.A bench comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set aside a single judge's February 18, 2019 order that had dismissed Crocs' five petitions as non-maintainable.'We do not think that this issue could have straightaway been decided by a mere reading of the plaint," the division bench said, adding Croc would have to be given an opportunity to establish that its claim for passing off was not based merely on copying, or imitation, of its registered design by domestic to the DB, passing off was a "sui generis common law remedy', aimed at protecting one's hard-earned goodwill and reputation from others who may deceitfully seek to capitalize on it. Passing off in trademark law refers to the act of one party misrepresenting their goods or services as those of another, leading to consumer confusion and potential harm to the other party's reputation and business, it Inc, USA had moved the HC alleging that a number of Indian footwear companies including Bata India Relaxo Footwear , Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising had passed off products by imitating its distinct look of its foam clogs. It said that these India companies copied the overall structure and perforated pattern of its clogs, which are distinct and unique to its trade Crocs was the proprietor of the design in respect of its footwear in 2004, it did not possess any registration of the given trade dress as a trademark under the Trade Marks Act, Indian firms' adoption of the trade dress in respect of identical goods was dishonest, malafide and fraudulent, Crocs claimed in its petitions, adding that 'unwary purchasers in market and trade are being deceived and defrauded as to the origin of the goods and business. The defendant's gains are the plaintiffs losses.'Besides adoption of the trade dress, they have also blatantly copied the essential and striking features of plaintiffs' design and there malafide and dishonesty is apparent, manifest and striking, Crocs argued.
