Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.04 seconds)
The Hershey Company vs Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree ... on 9 February, 2024 cites

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited vs Fast Cure Pharma on 16 August, 2023

Although the ld. Single Judge in Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. v. Fast Cure Pharma (supra) acknowledges the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (meaning: the express mention of one thing excludes all others), the application of the dynamic effect concept seems to contradict this legal maxim. The said approach potentially expands the scope beyond the explicit provisions, indirectly filling gaps that the Legislature did not address.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. vs The Controller Of Patents & Ors. on 10 November, 2022

It is to be noted that the said decision in Girdhari Lal Gupta (supra) has also been followed by this Court in Dr. Reddys Laboratories v. Controller of Patents (supra) the context of the Patents Act, 1970, after enactment of the TRA. However, unlike the 1999 Act, the both the Patents Act, 1970 and the Designs Act, 2000, the term 'High Court' has been defined. In both these statutes, the term 'High Court' is defined as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 1 - P M Singh - Full Document

Federal Express Corporation vs Fedex Securities Ltd. & Ors. on 11 April, 2017

Relying upon the said test, it is argued that even the Delhi High Court in Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Ltd.17 has taken the view that if a trivial or an insignificant part of the cause of action arises in Delhi, the Court would not have jurisdiction. Therefore, as long as the substantiality of the cause of action is considered, the concern that relaxing jurisdiction would lead to increased pendency is mitigated. In 16 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 345.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd vs Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors on 20 January, 2016

30.11 To reiterate the note of caution sounded in para 9 of Girdhari Lal Gupta, however, that cannot justify a litigant petitioning a Court, for cancellation or removal of the respondent's mark, before which he is neither feeling, nor is likely to feel any effect. That a provision of law cannot arm a litigant with a means of harassing his opponent is also trite; apart from Girdhari Lal Gupta, one may refer, in this context, to Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd v. Purushottam Kumar.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 54 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1