Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing The Heels vs Mr. V.K. Abrol And Anr. on 29 March, 2006

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Radheshyam Singh on 17 March, 2021

(i)GIC/GIC' as part of their business; trade mark, trade name and/or domain name/email in relation to their business, goods, and/or services for selling, distributing or promoting or offering for sale any products whatsoever or in any manner whatsoever. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as The Heels V. Mr. V.K. Abrol & Anr. (Supra) and Time Inc V. Lokes Srivastava & Anr. (Supra) and considering the fact that defendants deliberately avoided to contest the matter, the plaintiffs are held entitled to CS No (Comm.). 564/19 Page 14 of 15 appropriate damages which is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Only) in the facts and circumstances of the instant case to be paid by both the defendants jointly and severally.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S L'Oreal vs Mr. Harish on 12 April, 2023

'...15. Moreover, in India courts are sensitive to the growing menace of infringement and have started granting punitive damages even in cases where due to absence of the defendants exact figures of sales by the defendants under the infringing copyright and/or trademark exact damages are not available. This Court in The Heels Vs. V.K. Abrol & Anr., CS(OS) 1385/2005 decided on 29th March, 2006 while granting damages has held "This court has taken a view that where a defendant deliberately stays away from the proceedings with the result that an enquiry into the accounts of the defendant for determination of damages cannot take place, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the claim for damages as that would amount to a premium on the conduct of such defendant. The result would be that parties who appear before the court and contest the matter would be liable to damages while the parties who choose to stay away from the court after having infringed the right of the plaintiff, would go scotfree. This position cannot be acceptable."
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Through vs Ms. Gungun Gambhir on 11 April, 2023

'...15. Moreover, in India courts are sensitive to the growing menace of infringement and have started granting punitive damages even in cases where due to absence of the defendants exact figures of sales by the defendants under the infringing copyright and/or trademark exact damages are not available. This Court in The Heels Vs. V.K. Abrol & Anr., CS(OS) 1385/2005 decided on 29th March, 2006 while granting damages has held "This court has taken a view that where a defendant deliberately stays away from the proceedings with the result that an enquiry into the accounts of the defendant for determination of damages cannot take place, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the claim for damages as that would amount to a premium on the conduct of such defendant. The result would be that parties who appear before the court and contest the matter would be liable to damages while the parties who choose to stay away from the court after having infringed the right of the plaintiff, would go scotfree. This position cannot be acceptable."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Lacoste S.A vs Rakesh Goyal on 8 July, 2023

'...15. Moreover, in India courts are sensitive to the growing menace of infringement and have started granting punitive damages even in cases where due to absence of the defendants exact figures of sales by the defendants under the infringing copyright and/or trademark exact damages are not available. This Court in The Heels Vs. V.K. Abrol & Anr., CS(OS) 1385/2005 decided on 29th March, 2006 while granting damages has held "This court has taken a view that where a defendant deliberately stays away from the proceedings with the result that an enquiry into the accounts of the defendant for determination of damages cannot take place, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the claim for damages as that would amount to a premium on the conduct of such defendant. The result would be that parties who appear before the court and contest the matter would be liable to damages while the parties who choose to stay away from the court after having infringed the right of the plaintiff, would go scotfree. This position cannot be acceptable."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Living Media India Ltd. & Anr vs Asad Patel & Ors on 12 April, 2010

In Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. Park Infosys and Ors., 2007 (34) 178 (DEL), the Court, after noticing the observations in Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Popat and Anr., 118 (2005) DLT 580, The Heels v. V.K. Abrol and Anr., CS (OS) No. 1385/2005, Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Aparna Enamel Industries, 131 (2006) DLT 65 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, 125 (2005) DLT 504 and discussing the reasoning in detail and distinguishing the facts and law cited in those cases from the case for consideration, held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Disney Enterprises, Inc vs Mr. Rajesh Bharti & Ors on 13 February, 2013

15. Moreover, in India courts are sensitive to the growing menace of infringement and have started granting punitive damages even in cases where due to absence of the defendants exact figures of sales by the defendants under the infringing copyright and/or trademark exact damages are not available. This Court in The Heels Vs. V.K. Abrol & Anr., CS(OS) 1385/2005 decided on 29th March, 2006 while granting damages has held "This court has taken a view that where a defendant deliberately stays away from the proceedings with the result that an enquiry into the accounts of the defendant CS(OS)1878/2009 Page 5 of 8 for determination of damages cannot take place, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the claim for damages as that would amount to a premium on the conduct of such defendant. The result would be that parties who appear before the court and contest the matter would be liable to damages while the parties who choose to stay away from the court after having infringed the right of the plaintiff, would go scotfree. This position cannot be acceptable."
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Manmohan - Full Document

Cisco Technology, Inc. vs Santosh Tantia & Ors. on 29 May, 2014

23.3. This Court in The Heels Vs. V.K. Abrol & Anr., CS(OS) 1385/2005 decided on 29th March, 2006 while granting damages has held "This court has taken a view that where a defendant deliberately stays away from the proceedings with the result that an enquiry into the accounts of the CS(OS) No.1389/2008 Page 18 of 20 defendant for determination of damages cannot take place, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the claim for damages as that would amount to a premium on the conduct of such defendant. The result would be that parties who appear before the court and contest the matter would be liable to damages while the parties who choose to stay away from the court after having infringed the right of the plaintiff, would go scotfree. This position cannot be acceptable."
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next