The article talks about the concept of deceptive similarity and the elements of deceptive similarity under Indian Trademark law and the interpretations given by the court to the concept.
This judgement sets an example that prosecution cannot be quashed merely because the nature of the case appears to be civil. Therefore, the judgement has also increased the brink for quashing of prosecution under S.482 by the High Courts and ensures that there is not mass quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court in this case reiterated the existence of a third category of companies and thus increased the scope of application of provisions of the Companies Act. The court also did not hold back from ensuring substantial justice even though the case petition failed.
In Rich Paints Ltd. v. Vadodara Stock Exchange Ltd. , the Judges, have not considered the literal meaning of the provisions of the statutes but have considered the provisions in relation to the statute as a whole. The court in this case has interpreted Section 69 and 73 of Companies act 1956.
This judgement is a landmark Judgement on the maintainability of a writ petition under article 32. The court in this case has widened the scope of “aggrieved” person and allowed the petition to move forward to hear the contention of both sides.
The court in this case discusses whether the plaintiff should be allowed to use “forma pauperis” and proceed with his several law suits filed against “UFS Debt Recovery Service” and “Oxford Collection Agency” along with other defendants mentioned in his third application
In this case comment, the author shall be discussing and analysing the Judgement in detail, comparing it to various case laws as well as the future case laws that adopted a similar approach while deciding on similar issues.
The Learned Judge in this case, adopted a broader approach while interrelating the definition than that has been done in the previous cases, thereby opining that advice by a person that the other Directors of the company are accustomed to follow, is a sufficient basis to find someone to be a shadow director.
The court in this case discusses the judgement of the Competition Commission of India in light of the previously decided cases on the same issues. The Competition Commission of India had allowed complaints against an alleged dominant player.
The article focuses on the concept of deceptive similarity and its interpretation by the Indian courts. It also discusses the test of phonetic similarity and trade dress. It further discusses the fact that the India Judiciary by the plethora of Judgements has laid down the basic criteria and elements for Deceptive Similarity which has not been mentioned in the Trademark Act, 1999