The Delhi High Court set aside an order and restored an application, clarifying that discretion must be exercised regarding stay of suit under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act when rectification follows a suit.
Set aside the impugned order and restored IA No.14056/2012 for future directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~9
M/S VARUN GEMS ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Jasmeet Singh, Ms.Radha Chawla, Ms.Astha Sharma, Advocates versus
M/S PRECIOUS JEWELS & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankit Agarwal, advocate for Mr.J.K.Sethi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 09.02.2016
page 1 of 2
CM No.24840/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
FEBRUARY 09, 2016
‘skb’
FAO(OS) 600/2015
page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether stay of suit under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mechanical exercise or requires discretion when rectification is pending.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Puma Stationer P. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Hindustan Pencils Ltd.Referred¶9
2010 (43) PTC 479 (Del.)(DB)
Full Bench decision in FAO(OS)403/2012Followed¶9
FAO(OS)403/2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Varun Gems
M/S Precious Jewels & Ors
Pradeep Nandrajog
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
