Latest news with #ManishPitale
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
Bombay high court dismisses TikTok plea challenging ‘well-known' trademark status denial
Mumbai: Bombay high court dismissed a petition filed by TikTok Ltd that challenged the refusal by the trademarks registrar to recognise 'TikTok' as a well-known mark under the trademark laws in India. Justice Manish Pitale, in a June 10 order, said that it was obvious that due to the ban imposed by the govt of India against TikTok, its mark cannot be used. The reasons for the ban pertain to the sovereignty and integrity of India, its defence, and public order, the HC noted. "These are serious matters, which cannot be ignored," said the HC, holding that hence the registrar "did take into consideration relevant factors while refusing to include TikTok in well-known marks" and no error can be attributed to the assistant registrar who on Oct 31, 2023, denied its application. TikTok was launched in 2017. In two years, it had a presence in 155 markets and 75 languages, said the company seeking entry into the 'well-known' marks category. The HC said it is undisputed that the TikTok app remains banned in India. The HC said the registrar found that there was material indicating that the ban on TikTok was also in the backdrop of concerns regarding data privacy of the users and the fact that the servers are located in China. The said respondent also referred to certain instances indicating that pictures of some women and girls downloaded from TikTok were found to be morphed and that there were cases of cyberbullying and sexually explicit content. "Thus", the HC said, "merely because the ban on certain other applications has been lifted cannot be a ground for the petitioner to claim that the impugned order is rendered erroneous." Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
Hindustan Times
13-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
HC orders three nationalised banks to pay ₹386 cr to BCCI
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week directed three nationalised banks – Punjab National Bank, Indian Bank and Union Bank of India – to pay ₹386 crore to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in connection with its 2011 media rights agreement with the now defunct Nimbus Communications. A single-judge bench of justice Manish Pitale passed the order on a suit filed by the BCCI for the recovery of three bank guarantee amounts executed by Nimbus in favour of the board, after the banks refused to make the payment. The court directed Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India to each pay 37.5% of the total amount, ₹386 crore, while Indian Bank was ordered to pay the remaining 25%. All three banks have also been ordered to pay ₹25 lakh each to BCCI towards litigation costs. In October 2009, the BCCI had executed a Media Rights Licence Agreement (MRLA) granting Nimbus Communications rights to broadcast cricket matches in India from April 2010 to March 2014 in exchange for ₹2,000 crore. According to the terms of the agreement, the company had to furnish bank guarantees worth ₹2,000 crore to the BCCI. Accordingly, in October 2010, the banks issued nine bank guarantees and some of them were duly honoured as and when the board demanded the payments. However, later, Nimbus was unable to make some time-bound payments to the BCCI, which resulted in disputes. Eventually, in December 2011, the governing body for cricket in India terminated the agreement with the media company. The BCCI then sent letters to the banks invoking the remaining bank guarantees, worth ₹1,600 crore. However, all three banks refused to honour the remaining bank guarantees, arguing that they were no longer valid after the contract termination. The BCCI contended that the bank guarantees furnished by Nimbus Communications were unconditional, irrevocable, had nothing to do with the media rights agreement and were payable to them on demand. The banks, on the other hand, claimed that they were entitled to raise certain objections regarding the contract under which the bank guarantees were issued. The bench, however, noted that the bank guarantee clauses showed that the banks had agreed to make the payment to BCCI 'without any demur, reservation, contest, recourse or protest and/or without any reference'. 'These words clearly indicate that the defendant banks unconditionally agreed to honour their commitment and to make payment in terms of the bank guarantees to the plaintiff (BCCI), upon invocation of the same,' said the judge.
