Popular Articles

ING Life eyes 60 per cent growth in renewal premium
ING Life Insurance is expecting a 60 per cent growth in renewal premiums during this fiscal.

Competition to heat up as biggies gear up for small-car launch
Come 2010 and the small-car market is likely to witness intense competition with at least four new players set to launch their products in the market.

News of the day

India Inc gears up for hiring, salary hikes
Corporate India is getting ready with hiring plans and higher pay packets for 2010, as signs of economic recovery are becoming visible along with a rising confidence in the economy"s growth.
Online Business

Apex Court overrules HC order favouring Gufic Ltd

The Supreme Court today set aside the Delhi high court order which had allowed the Indian company, Gufic Ltd, to use the name ‘Cliniq’ in its skin care product. The bench headed by Justice B Sudershan Reddy vacated the order on the appeal of Clinique Laboratories against the high court order. - "Power of attorney" sales under SC scanner - NMDC to resume diamond mining at Panna in 3 months: Steel Min - UPDATE:SC allows Paradip Port Trust to reinvite bids for coal berth - US apex court refuses to stay Chrysler-Fiat deal - Patent row: SC allows TVS Motors to manufacture "Flame" - Mumbai SEZ in danger of being scrapped Earlier, the foreign firm selling skin care products had moved a single judge bench of the high court against the use of the word Cliniq by the Indian competitor in similar products. It argued that it would confuse the consumers. Moreover, it claimed that it had regisered the trade mark in 1978 and it has been using it ever since. It contended that the Indian company came into the market with a deceptive name about 20 years later. The judge passed an injunction against the Indian company in December last. But Gufic Ltd appealed to a division bench of the high court, which vacated the injunction. Therefore, Clinique appealed to the Supreme Court. It complained that it was not given a proper chance to argue the case as the court decided the issue in hasty manner. The Supreme Court, after vacating the high court order, sent the dispute back to it for final decision.


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):