instituted the present suit seeking to
restrain the defendants from making groundless threats of
institution of legal proceedings for infringement of patent under
Section ... para no.2 of his plaint that the defendants are making
groundless threats by filing an FIR under Section
right of the
defendant, but it cannot extend any groundless threats and defendant is liable to be
restrained.
It is further submitted that the defendant ... claim and defendant is liable to be restrained
from extending any groundless threats to the plaintiff. It is further argued that the
plaintiff
patent application in
question and no specific allegation of groundless threat has been
made against the defendant no.1. The applicant had already
transferred ... that the plaintiff has made
only one specific allegation of alleged groundless threat in the
whole plaint. The said allegation is of the registration
gmail.com
.....Defendant
(Ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2024)
SUIT AGAINST GROUNDLESS THREATS UNDER SECTION 142 OF
THE TRADEMARKS ACT, 1999
13.02.2025
JUDGMENT IN TERMS ... behalf from hampering the business of the
plaintiff or issuing groundless threats to the plaintiff, its subsidiaries,
business associates, etc. in respect of plaintiff
physically manhandle him.
11. Aggrieved by the repeated and allegedly groundless threats of recovery,
the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for perpetual ... restraining the defendant and their accomplices,
agents or associates from issuing groundless threat of legal action by way
of notices / letters against the plaintiff with
instituted by the plaintiff for
declaration and for permanent injunction against groundless threats
for legal proceedings being issued by the defendant and damages ... trade mark BODA for
exports. The defendant is also issuing groundless threats to the
suppliers of the plaintiff; rumors have been circulated in the
market
this Court, defendants were
restrained form issuing or circulating any groundless threat by way of
circulations/advertisement, or by communication in any manner
others
acting for and on their behalf from the
continuance of threats against Plaintiff's
adoption and use of the term
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay ... reputation caused to the Plaintiff by
illegal and unlawful issuance of groundless
threats against the Plaintiff for adoption and
use of a common to trade
this Court, defendants were
restrained form issuing or circulating any groundless threat by way of
circulations/advertisement, or by communication in any manner
Yeti Group and Ors
seeking injunction restraining defendants from issuing
groundless threats and seeking damages for a sum of Rs
6,00,000/-
II. WRITTEN ... LAMA
KITCHEN, insinuating allegations of infringement
tantamount to issuance of groundless threats of legal
proceedings under Section 142 of the Trade Marks
