Some Of Our Past Work

1. Adani Wilmar Ltd v Shri Praveen Gupta & Ors, Commercial Trademark Suit No. 4 of 2020, Commercial Courts, Ahmedabad
Represented our clients Praveen Gupta & Ors in a contentious matter where Adani Wilmar Ltd filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction & Damages against our clients. The allegations of the Plaintiff was that our client had copied the label of the Plaintiff on its edible oil bottles in order to dishonestly gain from the existing goodwill of the Plaintiff in the FMCG market. We successfully obtained an amicable mutual settlement for our clients and the matter has been disposed of.

2. Georges Monin SAS & Anr v Pekers & Company & Ors, CS (COMM) No. 566 of 2020, Delhi High Court

Represented our clients i.e. Pekers & Company in a contentious litigation which was filed by Georges Monin SAS, Italy. The Plaintiffs had filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction & Damages before the Hon`ble Delhi High Court. The allegation was that our client has copied the trade dress and design of the Plaintiff`s syrup bottles which are used at bars and pubs. We were successful in being able to resist any interim order of injunction against our defendant clients. The matter has been finally settled on mutually amicable terms and the litigation has been disposed of.

3. Registration assignment of “Maati Se”

“Maati Se” is a homestay concept based out of a village very close to Bhopal Airport in Madhya Pradesh. We advised “Maati Se” in their registration filings for obtaining word mark registration and logo / device registration. We filed 10 applications before Trademark Registry located at Mumbai for “Maati Se” in different classes prescribed under the Indian trademark law likeClass 31, 39, 41, 43 etc. We also helped “Maati Se” in replying to the objections raised by the Trademark Registry before advertisement was published of these applications.

4. Replying to Objections raised against V2 Retail trademark applications

V2 Retail India is a large conglomerate and also a listed company on the Indian bourses. The company runs various multi product retail showrooms across the countries. We prepared comprehensive replies to the objections raised by the Trademark Registry located at Delhi to the applications for wordmark and device/logo registration applied by V2 Retail India.
5. Stellar Information Technology Private Limited v Rakesh Kumar & Ors, CS (Comm) 482 of 2016, Alternative Citation – MANU/DE/2238/2016
Represented a young startup under the name Techchef Private Limited in a litigation before Delhi High Court wherein the master company was trying to enforce non – compete and non – solicit clauses present under the Employment Contract. Successfully got the interim injunction vacated thereby resisting the illegal, arbitrary and void restraining clauses under the Employment Contract.

6. Girish BS & Ors v JK Technosoft Limited, FAO (OS) (COMM) 217 of 2017

Successfully represented Girish BS & Ors before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in an appeal which was preferred against the order of the Hon`ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The subject matter of the dispute was the interpretation and enforcement of the Non – Compete and Non – Solicit clauses in the Employment Agreement. The matter has now been settled amicably between both the litigating parties.
7. Kalpit Sultania v Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) – Case No. 22 of 2021 – Competition Commission of India
Filed a complaint under Section 19 of the Competition Act against Indian Rare Earths Limited alleging discriminatory practises which IREL had adopted in selling Silimanite to the downstream players in the industry. The petition was filed in public interest alleging abuse of dominant position and discriminatory pricing against IREL. The matter is present pending before the Competition Commission of India.
8. M/s Govinda Polytex India Pvt Ltd v Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Delhi & Ors – WP(C) 1180/2022
Secured interim injunction in the Writ Petition which was filed against an order passed by the Regional Director under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013. The order was passed against our clients thereby injuncting our clients to use a name which was allegedly similar to the name of the complainant. The High Court on the first hearing heard both parties and granted interim stay relief.
9. Counter Statement filed on behalf of Being Healthy
Drafted and filed detailed and comprehensive Counter Statement on behalf of our Client qua the word mark ” Being Healthy “. The Counter Statement was filed in response to the opposition filed by actor and film star Salman Khan alleging similarity between his mark ” Being Human” and the mark of our Client. Detailed reply was thus drafted to counter the opposition and establish the distinction between the two marks. The matter is still pending before the Trademark Registry.

Disclaimer

Regulations of Bar Council of India do not permit us to advertise about our firm and our work. Information provided on this website is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising. It must be understood that Santhalia Law Chambers (the firm) is not liable for any consequence or for any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website. Website visitors are put on notice that the contents of this website are not to be treated as legal advice, nor are they to be utilized in any form, part or whole as legal advice. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she in all cases must seek independent legal advice.