17. That the defendant, M/s Sukan Rice Industries, 20/1 & 21, Nedunkulam Main Road, Chinthamani, Madurai – 625009, Tamil Nadu, is engaged in the same trade and business as that of the plaintiff, namely, manufacturing, marketing and processing of rice (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned goods and business). The Plaintiff is however not aware of the exact constitution of the defendant firm as also the name of its individual proprietor, partner or principle officer etc., as the case may be and they are called upon to disclose the same. 18. The defendant has adopted and started using or intends to use, in relation to its impugned goods and business, the trade mark bearing the word/mark MAAN MARK and the device of DEER both in an artistic manner and in a label format and a representation whereof is filed herewith as ANNEXURE-D-1 and is referred to as the impugned trade mark/label and/or impugned MAAN MARK trade mark/label. The word/mark MAAN MARK and the device of DEER are an essential, key, important and distinguishing feature of the impugned trade mark/label. All references to the term impugned trade mark/label include the word/mark …show more content…
The defendant has adopted and started using the impugned trade mark/label dishonestly, fraudulently and out of positive greed with a view to take advantage and to trade upon the established goodwill, reputation and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the plaintiff’s said trade mark. By the defendant’s impugned adoption and use, deception and confusion in the market is ensuing or is likely to so ensue. The plaintiff’s said trade mark are otherwise being diluted and eclipsed thereby. Any person not knowing clearly the relationship between the parties to this action is bound to be confused by the defendant’s impugned adoption and use and might well do business with the defendant thinking that he is dealing with the plaintiff or that some strong, vital and subtle links exist between the plaintiff and the
Being an investigator to Apollo Shoes, the financial statement fraud scheme likely to be present is dependent on the nature of the company. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99 (“SAS 99”) requires to focus on two broad areas of fraud:
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
Introduction Monsanto Company is a large multinational agricultural conglomerate that supplies genetically engineered products to the market. The enormity of its financial muscle makes it a strong market force. The company has been engaged in unscrupulous activities while receiving protection from the government and other government agencies in its undertakings. This analysis utilizes a heuristic approach to dissect the Monsanto’s relationship and performance in the market amidst ethical, social and legal odds. Monsanto company and government ties Challenges facing the Monsanto Company have been many.
Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Maratha Envoy) [1978] AC 1
In the absence of registered trade mark rights, case law suggests as a general principle, that mere similarity of goods is not enough for an actionable wrong to occur. Passing off derives from the common law action deceit which is the civil action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Passing off is a non-statutory cause of action that has developed over the years through case law and has changed considerably overtime. Passing off came into existence long before trademarks became registerable and has always been available at common law for marks refused registration, not registered or ineligible for
Brands and trade symbols are not just pictures. They implicate the very force of identity, which can form and recode itself according to the dynamic pull of public culture. But there are certain marks that remain disparaging by the communities that are targeted by them, and that is precisely why we need the force of law to limit its protection of them( Katyal). The Washington Redskins implicates a painful slur that has never been claimed or associated as symbol of pride by Native Americans and is in clear defiance of the Lanham
One attribute that may elongate the life span of a business is integrity, without it the business is normally headed for natural death. Integrity is a product of honesty and strictly upholding moral principles. Like any other church, the Catholic Church uses the Ten Commandments to justify why business integrity should be upheld. The Ten Commandments gives restrictions against theft or envy of other peoples’ goods and property. In particular, the bible advocates for stewardship, which should be applied in any business. This paper looks into the Catholic Church’s stand on topic of business integrity.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
This essay will examine the main cause of the demise of the derivative claim which is the possibility of pursuing a corporate relief and even costs via an unfair prejudice petition, a relief and order that was initially only available via derivative action. Further this essay will discuss as to how the boundaries between the statutory derivative action and the unfair prejudice should be drawn and what restrictions should be added to the unfair prejudice remedy under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 so that the significance of the statutory derivative action can be reinstated.
There is a lot of debate dealing with the ethics of business bluffing. Some say that the bluffing is ethical and that private life morality does not deal with business concern. Likewise, the ones against business bluffing on the grounds that it is an unethical behavior argue that bluffing amounts to deceiving the consumer or any other party within the business cycle. They also disagree with the proponents of bluffing that business morality is different from private life morality; they suggest that there is not much difference between the two and thus bluffing cannot be justified as ethical. Just like poker, business is largely a game that involves strategic bluffs. Business and private life worlds are completely different and the two thus demand
Sutherland, David F. "Defamation on the Internet." Ad IDEM / CMLA. David F. Sutherland & Associates, 1999. Web. 6 Apr. 2011. .
In. Rustam Satin v. Dr. Sampoornand, one of the contentions concerning an appeal was that it was based on caste consideration and hence a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act. The appeal was made by a Prominent Yadav to his Yadav brethren in the following form:
The movie “Glengarry Glen Ross” presented a series of ethical dilemmas that surround a group of salesmen working for a real estate company. The value of business ethics was clearly undermined and ignored in the movie as the salesmen find alternatives to keep their jobs. The movie is very effective in illustrating how unethical business practices can easily exist in the business world. Most of the time, unethical business practices remain strong in the business world because of the culture that exists within companies. In this film, the sudden demands from management forced employees to become irrational and commit unethical business practices. In fear of losing their jobs, employees were pressured to increase sales despite possible ethical ramifications. From the film, it is right to conclude that a business transaction should only be executed after all legal and ethical ramifications have been considered; and also if it will be determined legal and ethical to society.
Over the years, many companies such as scrabble, Tylenol, Channel, Louis Vuitton and even Polo Ralph Lauren (PRL) Corporation have had to fight to protect their intellectual property. By looking more specifically into Polo Ralph Lauren, a fashion company that offers a range of products from clothing to home furnishings, this paper will explore trademark laws and how these laws could be advantageous one hand and limit one group and limit business abilities on another.
Wu M. A. & Vohrah, B. (2012). The Commercial Law of Malaysia (2nd ed). Selangor: Pearson and Longman