Synergy Of Section 47, 57 &124 Of The Trademarks Act In Light Of Anubhav Jain Case
https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/anubhav-jain-case-trademarks-act-1999-ipr-field-marshal-case-infringement-delhi-high-court-230879

✍️ ANUBHAV JAIN vs. SATISH KUMAR JAIN & ANR. 2023

Delhi HC

The plaintiff in the present case instituted a petition u/s 57 of the Act for the cancellation/ rectification of the register. However, the defendant contested the maintainability of the present petition as it does not follow the process laid down u/s 124 of the Act. It is to be noted that the in the present case there was no question of invalidity raised in the trial court by the defendants.

Thus, the court framed the following issues-

Whether S.47 and S. 57 become abrogated in compliance with the S. 124 of the Act and whether the rights under S.124 in derogation of the rights available under S.57?
Whether the party can go for recourse under the S. 47 and S.57 of the Act when S.124 is not raised in a suit?
The Delhi High Court held that the right under S. 57, for cancellation of a mark and rectification of the register remains available. However, if an infringement suit that has been filed by either of the parties and one of them against it pleads invalidity of the mark as a ground of defense to the suit, then the party filing the infringement suit would acquire an independent right under Clause (ii) of S.124 of the Act to move the IPAB (now the High Court) for rectification of the register. Therefore, S. 124 must be read as an “additional relief” and must not be read as the only right available, in abrogation of S. 57 (para 24-26). Therefore, it is possible to go for recourse under S. 47 and 57 of the Act and as well as in S.124 when the plea of invalidity is raised in a suit.

The High Court points out in para 30 of the Patel Field Marshal judgment which was relied on by the opposite counsel in the present case that- “In cases where the parties have not approached the Civil Court, S. 46 and S.56 (pari matria to S.47 & S.57 of the Act) provides an independent statutory right to an aggrieved party to seek rectification of a trade mark.” The SC further remarked that the Patel Field Marshal case lays down the procedure under Clause (ii) of the second part of Section 124 of the Act is set in motion. It states when the High Court, would acquire seisin over the issue of validity of the contested trademark. That does not, in any manner take away from the right of the defendant to independently invoke Section 57.

#IPR #TRADEMARK
#DJS
@CurrentLegalGK

🎉 MPLRC MCQs

200+ MCQs

@CurrentLegalGK

#POCSO_MCQ

What can be the reasons for a child's interrogation as per the POCSO Act?

a. To establish whether the child needs urgent medical attention
b. To hear the child's version of the circumstances leading to the concern
c. To get a picture of the child's relationship with their parents or family
d. All of the above

✓ State the section also

Bollywood Songs Copyright: Playing Bollywood songs at wedding ceremonies not a copyright infringement, clarifies govt - The Economic Times
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/playing-bollywood-songs-at-wedding-ceremonies-not-a-copyright-infringement-clarifies-govt/articleshow/102162124.cms

🌟 When Discoveries are patenteable❓(100 words)

#IPR #Patent

@CurrentLegalGK

According to section 52 (1) (za) of the Copyright Act, playing a literary, dramatic, or musical work or communicating it to the public during a genuine religious or official ceremony by the central/state government or any local authority does not infringe copyright. This includes marriage processions and social festivities associated with weddings, which are regarded as religious ceremonies under this clause.

2023 Arbitration digest

@CurrentLegalGK

West bengal vacancy

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 Classification of section 12 POCSO

RK TARUN v. UOI 2022

#sexual_harrasment
#cognizable #non_bailable

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 Guidelines for remission of convicts

Laxman naskar v. UOI, 2000

Do you know Any other case???


@CurrentLegalGK

Bilkis Bano Convicts Remission: ‘Reform Is an Opportunity, Not a Right’, SC Told
https://thewire.in/law/bilkis-bano-convicts-remission-supreme-court-reserve-order

Which was the first case when it was held that ex post facto law principle will not apply to procedural laws.

#question

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 Attempt v Preparation in Rape offences

✓✓Recent case- Rabi Saha @ Sarkar v. State of West Bengal 2023 {Attempt to Rape}

“..asking the victim to remove her pant and in defiance the appellant himself removing it justifiably signifies an attempt to commit the offence of rape. The action of removing the undergarment of the victim covering and protecting her private parts and forcibly made her lie down on the ground cannot be for any other oblique reason but indubitably for the purpose of ravishing her”

@CurrentLegalGK

Use these quotes in your mains answer writing especially in UP and Bihar.

BNS section 69 🌟 Deceitful means OR false promise to marry

#Question❓
Deceitful consent is a consent? If No then how this section is distinguishable from Rape in this context of Consent/will in section 69 and Rape offence?


#Section_69_of_BNS

@CurrentLegalGK