Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.98 seconds)
Documents citing Christian Louboutin Sas vs Nakul Bajaj & Ors on 2 November, 2018

Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd vs Modicare Ltd & Ors on 31 January, 2020

In this context, it should be noted that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (supra) was disapproved of by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 4th April, 2019 in RFA (OS) (COMM) 1/2019 (M/s. Clues Network Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. L'Oréal), wherein the Court set aside an order of the learned Single Judge, which relied, inter alia, on Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 15 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Google Llc vs Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. & Ors on 10 August, 2023

44. The learned Single Judge referred to paragraphs no.83 and 84 of the decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj &Ors.7 and held that there is an obligation on part of Google to ascertain that the keyword chosen by the advertiser is not a trademark and even if it is a trademark the same has been licensed/assigned. The learned Single Judge held that Google cannot take/seek the benefit of exemption under Section 79 of the IT Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Shivam Industries vs Sri Baba Industries And Ors on 13 December, 2025

17.6 It may be now relevant to consider the citation relied upon by the ld. Counsel for plaintiff in 'Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors.'; (2018 SCC OnLine Del 13018), wherein it was held that once an e-commerce platform plays an active role in promotion, description, logistics, packaging or pricing of goods, it ceases to remain a mere intermediary and becomes liable for trademark infringement.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Clues Network Pvt Ltd vs M/S L’Oreal on 4 April, 2019

iii) Quoting extensively from the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd November, 2018 in CS (COMM) 344/2018 Christian Louboutin SAS vs. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., the learned Single Judge noted that the question whether an online market place is an intermediary was dependent on a number of factors. The learned Single Judge in para 21 of the impugned order gave five instances on the basis of which the website of the present Appellant would be disqualified for exemption under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 („IT Act‟) since the role of its website was "more than that of an intermediary".
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Amazon India Through Its India Head vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 28 October, 2021

13. The Complainant in support of his contention has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant 12/16 WP-3047-2021.doc Commissioner of State Tax and Others Vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited; Civil Appeal No.5121/2021 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Christian Louboutin Sas Vs. Nakul Bajaj & Ors. (2018) SCC OnLine Del 12215.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - S K Shinde - Full Document
1   2 Next