Back
VIBHU BAKHRU
Reddys Laboratories Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chandan M A And Anr. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral). - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 23.07.2021 (hereinafter 'the impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a learned Sole Arbitrator.
2. In the year 2004, the petitioner adopted and coined the Trademark 2 DEGE'.
3. On 23.08.2004, the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereafter 'MoU') with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India(hereafter 'DRDO') for "Technology Transfer Agreement for 2-DEOXY-D-GLUCOSE (2-DG)". In terms of the said MoU, DRDO granted a non-exclusive revocable license to the petitioner to utilize the "Technology" developed by it for manufacturing and selling the said product in India and abroad. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner, working in collaboration with the DRDO, developed the first Indian origin anti-covid medicine under the brand 'D2G'.
4. Thereafter, on 18.11.2004, the petitioner applied for registration of the Trademark 2DEGE' in Class 5 (Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Preparations an
The impugned domain name was deceptively similar to the petitioner's trademark, and the Arbitral Tribunal's reasoning was erroneous, leading to the setting aside of the impugned award.
The court upheld the arbitration award canceling a domain name for being confusingly similar to prior registered domain names, emphasizing the importance of preventing confusion in online commerce.
The registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark in bad faith, with no legitimate interests evidenced, constitutes grounds for its transfer to the legitimate trademark owner.
The court established that arbitration awards can only be set aside under Section 34 if they contravene fundamental principles of Indian law or public policy, without delving into the merits of arbit....
The judgment established the importance of protecting domain names and clarified the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that claims of bias against an arbitrator must be carefully scrutinized, and an arbitrator should not rely upon evidence gathered without giving th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the arbitrator to consider responses before passing an award and the need for fresh adjudication in arbitration proceedings.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards, the requirement to demonstrate patent illegality, and the principles of natural justice and a judicial approach in arb....
In trademark infringement cases, courts cannot grant broad injunctions without identifying specific infringing domains; reliefs must target clearly defined trademarks as per Sections 28(1) and 29 of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
