An update via Mint, we hear that Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. (BCCL) has appealed against the 15 December 2010 order of a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court which refused to stay an infringement suit filed by the Financial Times Ltd. (London).
Readers will recall a post we'd run some days ago in the matter, which you can read here. The Mint story reports that the appeal has been admitted by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, and the matter has been listed for final arguments on January 3, 2011.
By way of additional detail in the matter, Mint quotes a senior BCCL official:
Readers will recall a post we'd run some days ago in the matter, which you can read here. The Mint story reports that the appeal has been admitted by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, and the matter has been listed for final arguments on January 3, 2011.
By way of additional detail in the matter, Mint quotes a senior BCCL official:
The actual matter is before a court in Bangalore and “The Financial Times title is registered with the office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) and Times group still brings out the paper”.Clearly, we haven't heard the last of this yet!
Posts
2 comments:
Well.... taking cue from where u left, I think the last is about to come in this mother of all IP battles. IPAB recently decided (4th April 2012) on a bunch applications, so typical of a cross litigation matter. BCCL's rectification application was allowed (Mark 'Financial Times'/class 16); Financial Times Ltd's rectification application was allowed (mark 'Financial Times' /class 16); TPHL's rectification application was allowed (mark 'Financial Times' /class 9); TPHL's rectification application was NOT allowed (mark FT /class 16)......WHO WON THE GAME?????
Well.... taking cue from where u left, I think the last is about to come in this mother of all IP battles. IPAB recently decided (4th April 2012) on a bunch applications, so typical of a cross litigation matter. BCCL's rectification application was allowed (Mark 'Financial Times'/class 16); Financial Times Ltd's rectification application was allowed (mark 'Financial Times' /class 16); TPHL's rectification application was allowed (mark 'Financial Times' /class 9); TPHL's rectification application was NOT allowed (mark FT /class 16)......WHO WON THE GAME?????
Post a Comment