Last Updated:
January 11, 2023

Click here to submit your article
Monthly archive July, 2022

Sony Corp. of America V.s Universal City Studios, Inc.

Facts of the Case Sony created the Betamax video tape recording format in the 1970s. Universal Studios and the Walt Disney Company were among the film industry members concerned about this development, but they were also aware that the United States Congress was nearing the end of a major revision of copyright law and would be hesitant to enact any new safeguards for the film industry. In 1976, the companies chose to sue Sony and its distributors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming that because Sony was manufacturing a device that could be Read More
Views : 98

Mahindra vs Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

 INTRODUCTIONS – the case is about infringement of copyrights between Italian American automotive Fiat motors and Indian SUV giant Mahindra. The case was filed with the Federal Court of Australia  WHAT ARE COPYRIGHTS? The Copyright Act, of 1957 came into effect in January 1958.the legal right to be the only person who may print, copy, perform, etc. a piece of original work, such as a book, a song, or design.  COMPANY DETAILS –  Mahindra & Mahindra – Mahindra is an Indian multinational automotive manufacturing company headquarter is in Mumbai. Mahindra is best known for its utility Read More
Views : 166

JSW steel Vs Mysore Minerals LTD

-Joel D’Souza (M2120) Introduction- JSW Steel Ltd is an Indian multinational steel making company based in Mumbai and a part of the Group. With of motto of “Revolutionizing today, for a better tomorrow “,today JSW Steel is India’s second largest private sector steel company. With 14 locations in India and a strong international presence in USA and Europe, JSW strives towards building strongest technological empowerment. JSW Steel has always been at the forefront of research and innovation. It has a strategic collaboration with global leader JFE Steel of Japan, enabling JSW to access new and state-of-the-art technologies to produce & Read More
Views : 87

Ratnakar Bank Ltd (RBL Bank Ltd) Vs Mohit Trading Co. & Ors

Ratnakar Bank Ltd (RBL Bank Ltd) Vs Mohit Trading Co. & Ors RBL Bank Ltd (Formerly: The Ratnakar Bank Limited) A banking Company incorporated and registered Under the Companies Act 1956 Having its registered office at Shahpuri Kolhapur, Maharashtra416001 VS M/s Mohit Trading Co. (Borrower) Through its Proprietor Mr. Prem Pal B543,Ground Floor, Sudarshan Park, New Delhi 110015 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,36,347.41/ 2. Brief facts of the present case are that defendant no. 1, proprietorship firm through its proprietor i.e. defendant no. 2 and 3 had approached the petitioner bank and made a representation Read More
Views : 136

vodafone merge case

Add description for your Article from here.Name: vignesh Kundekar Subject: LAW Roll no: M2158 TOPIC: Case study Vodafone INTRODUCTION: Vodafone Case study describes the situation when Idea Cellular and Vodafone after the entrance of JIO. So, here is the Vodafone case study which describes the position of Vodafone and Idea Cellular before and post-merger, reasons for the merger, how did merger take place and critical analyses of the merger. Vodafone Company Detail: Came from the UK based Vodafone Group plc. It is a multinational service provider of telecommunications in 22 different countries as of 20th November 2020. And, in India Read More
Views : 142


Name _ Suhail Khan Subject _ Law Roll no _ M2150 Case Study Starbucks Introduction : – Starbucks is a chain of stores that sell coffee. A chain is many stores owned by the same company. Many of the stores look the same, and all stores sell the same items, often at the same prices. As well as coffee, Starbucks sells beverages and baked goods. Starbucks Corporation. It’s one of the most successful companies in the world, not only in the coffee shop business. It is so successful because it was able to provide an experience that changed how much Read More
Views : 99

Legal Battle Between Amul And Anul For the Trade Name

After a 20-year legal battle, Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, better known as Amul, was able to successfully defend its trademark against Shri Shakti Dairy and Kuldeep Enterprises, who were found guilty of violating the Amul trademark by the Commercial Court in Vadodara. Shri Shakti Dairy and Kuldeep Enterprises were found guilty of selling and promoting their products under names that resemble the original trade name Amul. According to the Vadodara Commercial Court, the defendants’ use of the term “Anul” violated the plaintiff “Amul’s” trademark and trademark rights. The court determined that the rhyme between the plaintiff’s trade Read More
Views : 123

Jk Cement Limited vs Anav Industries & Anr on 23 March, 2022

Introduction: The case involves JK Cement Company which is an Indian multinational cement company. The company headquarter is in Kanpur, India. It is a leading cement manufacturing company in India. The Company has over four decades of experience in cement manufacturing with Grey Cement plants in Nimbahera, Mangrol and Gotan in Rajasthan and in Muddapur, Karnataka. A complaint has been filed by them against Anav Industries and Anr ,where they are being accused of copying the trademark of JK Cement to sell their products to the customers. Case Details: 02.03.2022, Plaintiff from its marketing team received complaints of and inquiries Read More
Views : 101

Sri.Shaligram Prasad vs Jumbo King Foods Private Limited

The Plaintiff aka Sri.Shaligram Prasad brought this lawsuit against the Defendant aka Jumbo King Foods Private Limited in an effort to recover Rs. 3,77,529 with expenses and interest. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is involved in the VADA PAV business and the Defendant is a master franchisee for that industry in the Bengaluru region. Defendant offered the Plaintiff a franchise to operate a VADAPAV business in Bengaluru. The defendant persuaded the plaintiff to pay the franchisor a sum of Rs. 3,37,080/- by suggesting the location at Rajarajeshwari Nagar to conduct such business. The Plaintiff claims that after paying the Read More
Views : 118

Pacific Coast Coal Mines Ltd Vs Arbuthnot

 INTRODUCTIONS: The company has no power to do any act not authorized expressly or impliedly by its memorandum and any act so done is ultra vires and incapable of ratification, even if every member of the company assents to it.  CONCEPT OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE: Doctrine of Constructive notice is nothing but a protection provided to the company against the outsiders. The doctrine of indoor management is completely contrary to it. It is the protection provided to the outsiders against the company. Thus both the doctrines maintain a balance and do not lead to any abuse. One thing that Read More
Views : 97