JYOTI SINGH
Sanjay Mehra – Appellant
Versus
Sharad Mehra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
I.A. 13127/2022 (under Sections 5 and 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by Defendant No. 1)
1. Present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the word/mark SUPERON or any other deceptively similar or identical word/mark in any manner in India, whether as a trademark or trade name or corporate name or domain name on any product or packaging including distributor's certificate, amounting to infringement of the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff as averred in the plaint as well as restraint against passing off, infringement of copyright etc.
2. Plaintiff is stated to be the proprietor of SUPERON and VAC- PAC family of trademarks, trade dresses and other Intellectual Property rights associated with the concerned goods under the said trademarks, in India. Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are brothers as also Directors of Defendant No. 3, which is a Company incorporated in the year 2004 and its Board of Directors is composed of Plaintiff and his family members as 50% shareholders on one hand and Defendant No. 1 and his family members as 50% shareholders on the other hand. Defendant No. 1 is also
Chloro Control India Private Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Others
Emaar MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh
Golden Tobie Private Limited (Formerly known as Golden Tobie Limited) v. Golden Tobacco Limited
Hema Khattar and Another v. Shiv Khera
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums
Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty International
M.R. Engineers and Contractors Private Limited v. Som Datt Builders Limited
Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja and Others
Shin-Etsu Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 234
Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and Another
Sundaram Finance Limited and Another v. T. Thankam
Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company and Another
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the legislative intent to promote arbitration, the limited power of prima facie review at the reference stage, and the rejection of the Law Com....
The existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6) allows for disputes related to a memorandum of family settlement to be arbitrable, reinforcing the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz.
Court has limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The existence of an arbitrable dispute, the validity of the arbitration agreement, and the existence of an arbitrable dispute are to be determined by the arbitral tribunal.
The scope of judicial review under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to examining whether an arbitration agreement exists and whether the dispute is arbitrable.
A settlement agreement that explicitly supersedes an original contract and lacks an arbitration clause is not subject to arbitration, reinforcing the principle of separability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.