𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
18.9K subscribers
831 photos
11 videos
1.65K files
2.94K links
πŸ“² Contact β†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

πŸ‘¨β€βš– Filtered Information Brings Clarity.

🌐THE BEST FROM ALL LEGAL UPDATES BY EOD.

"Finding Quintessence of all possible POVs of provisions and Precedents
_____________
🧠 Daily Quiz β†’ @LegalQuizzes

β³πŸš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
First Sale Doctrine: Addressing Infringement By Tampering of Trademarks https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/trade-mark-first-sale-proprietor-ipr-right-to-health-wipo-patanjali-ayurved-delhi-high-court-ss-rana-co-274697
πŸ’°πŸͺ™ Doctrine of 1st Sale under Trademark Act

Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, establishes an important facet of trademark law and that is - when someone lawfully acquires goods bearing a registered trademark, any subsequent sale or dealing with those goods, whether by that individual or another person acting through them, does not constitute trademark infringement.

However

Section 30(4) clarifies that this protection does not apply if there are legitimate reasons for the trademark owner to restrict further sales, particularly if the goods' condition has been altered or impaired after their initial sale
.

#IPR
@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘2
🌟 #Question

A signs a contract with B (painter) that you can paint my home I will give you money, now A gave advance money and B who is painter wants to paint the home but is not allowing him.

Is this a breach of Contract?

@CurrentLegalGK
🌟 Evidence gained by Illegal search and seizure, admissibile or not?


A police officer illegally breaks into a house belonging to a suspect (in an incident unrelated to any investigation) but stumbles upon a crucial piece of evidence (say, a blood-stained knife which looks like a murder weapon, or a forged letter of credit). Now, there’s no doubt that this rather enterprising police officer has committed a crime (housebreaking/trespass, amongst others) but would the evidence seized still be admissible in a court of law? Or would it be termed what we lawyers call the β€˜fruits of a poisonous tree’ and eschewed from consideration being inadmissible? Is it true that, even if something is admittedly stolen, it is still admissible in evidence?...

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/06/15/rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means/
Telegram- @CurrentLegalGK

fruits of poisonous tree doctrine
πŸ‘3❀‍πŸ”₯2πŸ’―1