Preview

This is your website preview.

Currently it only shows your basic business info. Start adding relevant business details such as description, images and products or services to gain your customers attention by using Boost 360 android app / iOS App / web portal.

REDDYANDREDDYASSOCIATES 55dafb5d4ec0a407c44969ae Services https://www.reddyandreddylawfirm.com

Bombay HC rejects plea to restrain SII from using ...

  • 2021-05-13T12:21:15

Bombay HC rejects plea to restrain SII from using “Covishield Trademark” In a recent ruling, on 20.04.2021, a bench of the Bombay High Court of Justices Nitin Jamdar and CV Bhadang declined to grant interim relief to pharmaceutical company, Cutis Biotech in the form of restraining Serum Institute of India (SII) from using its trademark for the “Covishield” vaccine (Cutis Biotech v. Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd.). It was observed by the court that the temporary injunction prayed for would cause confusion and disruption in the vaccine administrative program. While neither of the parties had obtained registration for the mark, it was held that there was prima facie evidence to show that SII had started using the mark prior to Cutis, took substantive steps towards its development, and had continued using the mark without any break. Thus, the court did not allow Cutis to claim to be a prior user of the mark. Reddy & Reddy Law Firm has a forte in handling matters related to intellectual property rights. They have an experienced team of lawyers ready to assist in all your disputes.

Bombay HC rejects plea to restrain SII from using “Covishield Trademark” In a recent ruling, on 20.04.2021, a bench of the Bombay High Court of Justices Nitin Jamdar and CV Bhadang declined to grant interim relief to pharmaceutical company, Cutis Biotech in the form of restraining Serum Institute of India (SII) from using its trademark for the “Covishield” vaccine (Cutis Biotech v. Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd.). It was observed by the court that the temporary injunction prayed for would cause confusion and disruption in the vaccine administrative program. While neither of the parties had obtained registration for the mark, it was held that there was prima facie evidence to show that SII had started using the mark prior to Cutis, took substantive steps towards its development, and had continued using the mark without any break. Thus, the court did not allow Cutis to claim to be a prior user of the mark. Reddy & Reddy Law Firm has a forte in handling matters related to intellectual property rights. They have an experienced team of lawyers ready to assist in all your disputes.

  • 2021-05-13T12:21:15

Have any question or need any business consultation?

Have any question or need any business consultation?

Contact Us