The Supreme Court in Leela Rajagopal & Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan & Ors held that a Will drawn
up in English is valid, even if the person bequeathing his/her property was
ignorant of the language, provided the content was explained to the testator.
"The lack of knowledge of English even if can be attributed to the
testator would not fundamentally alter the situation inasmuch as before
registration of the Will the contents thereof can be understood to have been
explained to the testator or ascertained from her by the Sub Registrar, PW-4,
who had deposed that such a practice is normally adhered to."
Agarwal and Company - Advocates agarwalandco@gmail.com; info@saketadvocate.com; 011-79619811; 9810176867
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Delhi High Court restrains distribution and exhibition of Badmashiyaan
Delhi High Court has issued an order restraining the distribution and exhibition of the film after a complaint of copyright infringement was filed against makers of the film VRG Motion Pictures.
MSM Motion Pictures and Kaleidoscope filed a plea stating that Badmashiyaanwas a blatant copy of the Korean film Couples, whose rights had been acquitted by them for their yet to release film Mango.
"The Delhi High Court has restrained the distribution and exhibition of the trailer and the film titled Badmashiyaan, on the basis of a claim for copyright infringement by MSM and Kaleidoscope. The Plaintiffs claimed that Badmashiyaan is a copy of the Korean film Couples and their yet to be released film, Mango. The plaintiffs also claimed this relief based on an exclusive right that they obtained from the producer of Couples to make the Hindi language remake of Couples."
MSM Motion Pictures and Kaleidoscope filed a plea stating that Badmashiyaanwas a blatant copy of the Korean film Couples, whose rights had been acquitted by them for their yet to release film Mango.
"The Delhi High Court has restrained the distribution and exhibition of the trailer and the film titled Badmashiyaan, on the basis of a claim for copyright infringement by MSM and Kaleidoscope. The Plaintiffs claimed that Badmashiyaan is a copy of the Korean film Couples and their yet to be released film, Mango. The plaintiffs also claimed this relief based on an exclusive right that they obtained from the producer of Couples to make the Hindi language remake of Couples."
http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/4665685/Delhi-High-Court-restrains-distribution-and-exhibition-of-Badmashiyaan
GUCCI LOSES TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE AGAINST GUESS IN FRANCE
Gucci has been accusing Guess
of trademark violations for years, and on Friday the Court of Paris reached a
decision in the matter that has already been addressed in Italian and American courts.
The French court ruled in
Guess's favor, finding no trademark infringement, no counterfeiting and no
unfair competition between the luxury Italian label and American mall brand.
Gucci's request for €55 million (about $62 million USD) in damages was denied
and instead the company was ordered to pay Guess €30,000 about ($34,000
USD). The court also nullified Gucci's trademark of three of its "G"
logos. In a statement, a representative for Gucci responded saying the company
strongly disagrees with the verdict and "will certainly and immediately
bring an appeal against the decision."
This marks Guess's second
victory against Gucci so far. However, in 2012, a New York court ruled that
Guess was guilty of copying four of the five trademarked logos Gucci addressed in
its claim. According to the judge's decision in that case, the logos
in question were the following:
a) the
green-red-green Stripe mark
b) the
repeating GG pattern
c) the
diamond motif trade dress, which is the repeating GG pattern with a pair of
inverted Gs in each corner rendered in a brown/beige color combination,
d) the
stylized G design mark
e) the
script Gucci design mark
In a dramatic court case that
involved tears and shady e-mails, Guess only ended up having to
pay $4.7 million in damages, which was nothing compared to the $124
million Gucci was seeking and small change when you consider that Guess made
nearly $2.7 billion in revenue in 2011.
Two major points weakened
Gucci's case and contributed to the small payout. First, the judge noted that
Gucci could not have been ignorant of Guess's designs until it finally filed
the case in 2009, especially since both brands had similar advertising budgets
and stores near each other, often in the same mall. (Guess was founded in 1981
and started producing the designs in question around 1995) And secondly, the
judge ruled Guess had diluted Gucci's logos, not counterfeiting them, saying,
"courts have uniformly restricted trademark counterfeiting claims to those
situations where entire products have been copied stitch-for-stitch."
http://fashionista.com/2015/02/french-court-rejects-gucci-trademark-claims-against-guess-paris-france
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)