Inttl Advocare

We are honored to share that Inttl Advocare has once again been acknowledged by asialaw as an 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐦 in the field of 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲! This recognition is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our incredible team. 𝐀 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨: • Our Founder and Managing Partner, Hemant Singh for being recognised as an 𝐄𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫! • Our Senior Partner, Mamta Jha for being acknowledged as a 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫! • Our Managing Associate, Yashwant Rai Grover for being named a 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫! Grateful to our clients for their continued trust and support. Congratulations to the entire team for this well-deserved honor! #legalrecognition #asialawrankings #asialaw2024 #legalaward #legalaccolade

A significant milestone in India's regulatory landscape was achieved on 9th September, 2024, as the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) unveiled the latest provisions under the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, focusing on merger control. This announcement was accompanied by the release of the Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations, 2024 (also known as the ‘Merger Regulations). Taking effect from 10th September 2024, these regulations mark a pivotal enhancement in the framework governing mergers, acquisitions, and other strategic combinations. Designed to foster a fair and competitive market environment, the Revised Combination Regulations introduce a comprehensive and robust mechanism for the submission, scrutiny, and approval of such transactions, thereby safeguarding market integrity and promoting healthy competition across India. The notification represents a major update to India's merger control framework by introducing several important changes. Among these updates are a revised Deal Value Threshold (DVT) for obtaining CCI approval, broader applicability to international transactions, and detailed transitional provisions and exemptions. #legalamendment #ministryofcorporateaffairs #competitionact #mergerregulations #CCI #mergersandacquisitions #legaltransactions #combinationregulations

In the instant appeal, the Appellant, challenged the order dismissing their Writ Petition, which sought to prevent the registration of the label "VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER" by Respondent No. 3. Appellant manufactures "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER" and holds a B-3 license under the MP Beer and Wine Rules. In May 2023, Respondent No. 3, sought to register the labels "BOLD SUPER STRONG BEER" and "VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER." The Appellant objected, claiming that "VASCO 60000" closely resembled their "MOUNT 6000" brand in numeral use, artistic design, and colour scheme. Despite these objections, the Excise Commissioner approved the label registration in Dec 2023, prompting the Appellant to file a writ petition. The Respondents argued that the two labels were distinct, and Respondent No. 3 had been manufacturing "VASCO 60000" since 2017. On 12th August, 2024, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the Appellant to pursue a civil suit if they wished to continue their challenge. Following the dismissal of the writ petition, the Appellant filed an appeal, arguing that the Excise Commissioner failed to apply Rule 9 of the MP Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, which prohibits label registration resembling existing ones. They pointed out deceptive similarities between the marks, claiming the case involved legal issues, not factual disputes, and should not have been redirected to Civil Court. The Appellant presented visual comparisons, highlighting similar design elements, arguing that these were copied to mislead the public. Additionally, the Court noted Respondent No. 3 had previously undertaken not to use the "VASCO 60000" label in January 2023 but sought registration for a modified version in May 2023. The Court held that the Excise Commissioner had indeed failed to properly apply Rule 9 of the Liquor Rules. It noted that the Appellant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to show deceptive similarities between the "VASCO 60000 EXTRA STRONG BEER" and their "MOUNT 6000 SUPER STRONG BEER" labels, particularly in the use of the numeral "6000," the colour schemes, and the overall design elements, which could confuse the public. As a result, the Court directed the Excise Commissioner to reconsider the registration of the label considering these findings. The court also referred to various judicial precedents to hold that deceptive similarity could exist based on essential features and overall impression created by the competing marks. The Court, thus, overturned the earlier dismissal of the petition and remanded the case for further review by the Excise Commissioner. #legaljudgment #madhyapradeshhighcourt #mounteverestbreweries #excisecommission #liquorrules #disputeresolution #intellectualproperty

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the order of the Single judge which vacated the ad interim injunction granted in favour the Appellant- M/S DEEN DAYAL ANAND KUMAR SARAF, in a trade mark infringement dispute against the Respondents. The Appellant, registered proprietor of the trade marks "MD" and "MD-70" related to silver ornaments, with its usage dating back to November 1997, discovered the Respondent’s usage of the infringing marks in 2022 at the All India Jewellery Expo held in Agra, where the Respondents’ products bore a striking resemblance to their own. By March 2023, the Appellant took legal action by filing a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Respondents, alleging that their products infringed upon the Appellant's trade mark and copied their label, trade dress, and packaging. This led the Delhi High Court to grant an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from using any similar marks. However, in July 2023, the Respondents moved to vacate this injunction, arguing that the Appellant had failed to disclose material facts, regarding a cease-and-desist notice issued by the Appellants, in response to which the Respondents had requested the Appellant to disclose its registered trade marks for a comparative examination, to which the Appellant never responded. The Respondents claimed that this non-disclosure amounted to suppression of facts. Agreeing with the Respondents, the Single Judge vacated the injunction in August 2024, ruling that the Appellant had deliberately withheld key information. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned the order passed by the Single Judge, which had vacated the injunction against the Respondents, observing the Appellant had not willingly suppressed material facts, as alleged. The Court held that the non-disclosure of the cease-and-desist notice and the Respondents' reply was not significant enough to justify vacating the injunction. The Division Bench reinstated the ex parte ad-interim injunction accordingly and restrained the Respondents from using any trade marks, packaging, or trade dress similar to that of the Appellant. The judgment underscores the necessity for fair disclosure but clarifies that not every omission of fact results in the denial of relief. It highlights that for non-disclosure to be a valid ground for vacating an injunction, the suppressed facts must be materially adverse to the case. The decision reinstates the Appellant’s right to protection against trade mark infringement, emphasizing the Court’s commitment to upholding intellectual property rights despite procedural errors in disclosure. #legaljudgment #delhihighcourt #intellectualproperty #trademarklaw #trademarkdisputes #trademarkinfringement

𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆! We are looking for talented legal professionals to join our Litigation team: • 𝟐 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐫/𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 – 𝐏𝐐𝐄 𝟓-𝟕 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 • 𝟐 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 – 𝐏𝐐𝐄 𝟏-𝟑 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 If you have experience in Intermediary Liability, Gaming, Media, Technology laws, or IP laws, along with strong drafting skills, attention to detail, and the ability to work in a fast-paced environment, we want to hear from you! 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐂𝐕 𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐫@𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞.𝐜𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲.

A significant issue concerning the procedural handling of trade mark opposition proceedings, was recently addressed by the High Court of Bombay in its ruling dated 16.08.2024. The dispute arose when an opposition was filed by the Petitioner, Coaster Shoes- a company engaged in the business of inter alia manufacturing, marketing and sale of footwear, against a trade mark application of a competitor (respondent no. 2). Respondent no. 2, submitted a counter-statement to the opposition. Subsequently, the Trade Marks Registrar (Respondent no. 1) dismissed the oppositions on the ground of late filing of evidence, without addressing the merits of the case. However, the Petitioner contended that they had not received the counter-statement thereby missing the mandatory deadlines for filing supporting evidence. Assessing the issues surrounding the service of the counter-statement and the subsequent handling of the opposition proceedings, the Bombay High Court determined that the Petitioner had not received the counter-statement and held that mere dispatch of the document by post does not suffice; actual receipt by the Petitioner is necessary for compliance with the procedural timelines. It was also clarified that Rule 15 of the 2002 Trade Mark Rules, concerning service of documents, does not apply to documents sent by the Registrar, as this is explicitly covered under Rule 18 of the 2017 Rules. The Court further found that the Registrar of Trade Marks had failed in its duty to maintain the purity of the register by dismissing the opposition on a technicality rather than examining the merits of the case. The judgment quashed the impugned order of dismissal, and directed the Registrar to take the Petitioner’s evidence into account and re-open the opposition proceedings. This noteworthy judgment reaffirms the necessity for actual receipt of documents in trademark opposition proceedings, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained. By clarifying that the mere dispatch of documents is insufficient and emphasizing the Registrar's duty to uphold the integrity of the trademark register, the judgment ensures that technical errors do not undermine substantive rights. #legaljudgment #bombayhighcourt #coastershoes #intellectualproperty #trademarklaw #trademark #trademarkrules #registraroftrademarks

The Bombay High Court has granted temporary relief to Hindustan Unilever (HUL) in its case against Abbott Laboratories, directing Abbott to halt advertisements that disparage HUL’s ‘Horlicks Diabetes Plus’. HUL filed the plea after coming across an ad in August 2024 that portrayed Abbott’s ‘Ensure Diabetes Care’ as a superior replacement for “Horlicks Diabetes Plus”, a message that was widely circulated in WhatsApp groups across India. Upon discovering the advertisement, the plaintiff immediately reached out to the Defendants through WhatsApp, requesting the withdrawal of the ad. Despite this communication, Abbott did not take any corrective action, prompting Horlicks to file a lawsuit. The plaintiff argued that the manner in which their product was dismissed in the advertisement amounted to unfair disparagement, designed to damage the reputation of Plaintiff’s product in the market. Upon reviewing the advertisement, the Court found that the clear substitution of ‘Horlicks Diabetes Plus’ with ‘Ensure Diabetes Care’ sent a negative message about the plaintiff’s product. The Court further noted that this was not coincidental, as Defendant could have easily used a generic product in the advertisement instead of directly referencing the plaintiff's brand. It reiterated the legal principle that while advertisers are free to praise their own products, they must not unfairly denigrate competitors' products. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of product disparagement. It granted ad-interim relief, temporarily restraining the Defendants from broadcasting or circulating the impugned advertisement. Defendant was also directed to recall, delete, and take down the advertisement from all platforms. The next hearing has been scheduled for 7th October, 2024. This ruling upholds fair advertising principles by affirming that while businesses are free to highlight their own products, they must not engage in unfairly belittling their competitors. This sets a high standard for ethical marketing practices, ensuring that competitive advertising remains robust yet respectful, and reinforcing the integrity of market competition. #legaljudgment #bombayhighcourt #HUL #Abbott #advertisements #advertisingprinciples #productdisparagement #intellectualpropertylaw

On this auspicious occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi, let's celebrate the triumph of wisdom over appearances. As we welcome Lord Ganesha, who symbolizes intelligence, foresight, and humility, let’s remember that even his humble companion, a tiny mouse, finds significance at his feet. May we embrace this lesson of inclusivity, valuing every contribution regardless of size or stature. Wishing everyone a joyous Ganesh Chaturthi! #ganeshchaturthi #festivalofwisdom #festivalofinclusivity

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has taken a decisive stand against the proliferation of counterfeit goods on major e-commerce platforms. Eastern Book Company (EBC), secured a ruling mandating e-commerce platforms like Amazon to expunge from their platforms any listings featuring counterfeit versions of EBC's distinguished works. The Plaintiff, a respected publisher of legal textbooks, commentaries, and law reports, discovered unauthorized sellers on e-commerce platforms peddling pirated versions of their works under the trade marks "Eastern Book Company" and "EBC." In response, Plaintiff sought an injunction to protect its intellectual property and a court order compelling the platforms to reveal the sellers' identities and financial details, as well as to confiscate the counterfeit books to prevent further infringement. Recognizing the severity of the issue, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff directing e-commerce platform to immediately block and remove the infringing listings from their sites. Furthermore, the Court ordered the platforms to disclose detailed information about the sellers responsible, including their addresses, contact details, and financial records related to the sales of counterfeit books. The platforms were also directed to surrender any counterfeit copies of EBC’s books in their possession to the publisher. The ruling sets a precedent for protecting intellectual property in the digital age by holding e-commerce platforms accountable for hosting counterfeit goods. It emphasizes the need for proactive measures from e-commerce platforms to prevent the sale of pirated products and reinforces the legal framework for addressing online infringement, thereby supporting the rights of publishers and content creators in maintaining the integrity of their work. #legaljudgment #delhihighcourt #easternbookcompany #legalprecedent #intellectualproperty #onlineinfringement #ecommerceplatforms

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court reinforced the binding nature of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, where no urgent relief is sought. It addressed the issue of whether this provision applies to counterclaims made during an ongoing commercial suit. The original dispute between the parties pertained to a commercial transaction, with the Plaintiff initiating a suit to resolve a conflict. Before the suit could be instituted, the Plaintiff had underwent pre-institution mediation as per Section 12A of the Act, but the mediation process did not result in a settlement. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a counterclaim in the same suit, raising a separate set of issues. However, the Defendant did not undergo pre-institution mediation for the counterclaim, arguing that since mediation had already been attempted for the original suit, repeating the process for the counterclaim would be futile and unnecessary. The counterclaimant contended that the law should not mandate a second round of mediation for the same parties, as it would only delay the trial and lead to absurd results. The Court opined that prior mediation in the main suit does not exempt the counterclaim from the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A. It observed that counterclaims are legally distinct from the original suit, often involving different issues and reliefs, and that the approach of parties may evolve during a second mediation attempt. The legislative intent behind the concerned provision was reiterated by the Court, stating that the provision is meant to promote early settlements and reduce the judicial burden. It warned against liberal interpretations that would render the mandatory mediation process optional. Ultimately, the counterclaim was allowed to proceed, but the judgment reinforced the binding nature of pre-institution mediation for all future cases. The instant ruling is significant as it reaffirms the mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, not only for original suits but also for counterclaims, though the same can be exempted wherein the case contemplates the urgent relief! It clarifies that counterclaims, even if related to the same transaction, are treated separately for mediation. The judgment highlights the importance of mediation in commercial disputes, aligning with the legislative goal of promoting settlements outside Court. Noncompliance with this requirement can result in dismissal if the case of urgency is not made out, reinforcing the framework for efficient dispute resolution. #legaljudgment #delhihighcourt #disputeresolution #mediation #commercialcourtsact #preinstitutionmediation #commercialtransaction #legalsettlement #adityabirlafashion