The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim ban on Acqualite, preventing it from manufacturing slippers deceptively similar to Relaxo’s Hawai brand. The ruling reinforces protection of Relaxo’s trademark and brand identity.
The Delhi High Court fined the Intellectual Property authority Rs 20,000 for repeatedly requesting adjournments in an IPR case. The penalty must be paid to the Army Central Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court emphasized that such delays waste time and hinder justice, urging parties to avoid unnecessary extensions in legal proceedings.
At the MNLU Symposium on AI, Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized the limitations of artificial intelligence in the legal profession. He remarked that while the idea of “AI Judges” is often discussed, true justice requires human judgment. “Judges and lawyers cannot be driven by AI in 95 per cent of the cases,” he stated. Justice Bhuyan highlighted the irreplaceable role of human discretion and empathy in the judicial process.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) raised concerns about lawyers using social media for promotion. It said that such actions are a “violation of professional ethics” as lawyers are not allowed to advertise their services. The BCI warned that this can lead to misinformation and harm the dignity of the legal profession. Lawyers are advised to follow ethical guidelines and maintain the respect of the judiciary.
Today, On 7th February, The Delhi High Court prohibited the unauthorized use of Ratan Tata’s name, picture, and the Tata logo for an award event. The court is also evaluating whether ‘Ratan Tata’ qualifies as a well-known trademark due to his widespread recognition. This decision reinforces legal protections against misusing prominent personalities’ identities. The case highlights the growing importance of trademark rights in protecting individual and brand reputations.