Author: kkslawoffices

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a petition filed by MakeMyTrip (MMT) against the order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court (DHC), in which the DHC rejected the contention of trademark infringement by Booking.com through Google Ads program, by noting that a case of “passing-off” of trademark would not arise in the present case. Booking.com, one of the competitors of MMT, had made the highest bid & purchased the ‘MakeMyTrip’ keyword on Google Ads Program, which according to the DHC, does not amount to infringement or passing off of trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) vide Notification No. B-14011/1/2024-ATD-II has issued the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Monetary Penalty) Guidelines, 2024 (Penalty Guidelines) setting out guidelines to be adopted by CCI for determining the quantum of penalty to be imposed under various plenary provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. Among other things, the Penalty guidelines, vide its para 3(1), allows CCI to impose a penalty amounting to thirty percent of the average relevant turnover, which if according to the CCI is not sufficient to create deterrence, can also be further increased to the legal maximum i.e., ten percent of the global turnover of the enterprise.

The Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with the issue of whether the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) has held that, by virtue of Section 43 of the A&C Act, the provisions of Limitations Act would apply to arbitration proceedings. The SC further noted that limitation period of 3 years as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with the correctness of the view taken by a 3 judge Bench in the Asian Resurfacing case, has held that, “An order of vacating interim relief passed without hearing the beneficiary of the order is against the basic tenets of justice”. The SC, also reiterated the fact that the High Courts are also constitutional courts, which are not judicially subordinate to the SC. The SC further held that, ad-interim relief for stay of criminal/civil trials, once granted, can be affirmed or vacated only after application of mind by the concerned court.

Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. (Viacom18) & the Walt Disney Co. (Disney) have entered into an agreement to form a joint-venture (JV) to combine the business of Viacom18 & Star India Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL). As a part of this JV, RIL will invest ₹11,500 crore & Disney will provide Content License. Creation of this JV will consolidate the leading TV & digital streaming platforms for entertainment and sports content in India with RIL will hold 16.34%, Viacom18 – 46.82% , whereas Disney will have 36.84% of the JV.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has published certain proposed changes in Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 regarding the mechanism for accessing confidential documents/information of a case from CCI which, inter alia, set out the form of undertakings to be supplied by the parties, framed strict timelines for setting up of confidentiality ring & subsequent inspection of case records of the confidential documents/information and revision of fees for inspection of records. The CCI has further invited comments from stakeholders on the topic to be filed before 27 March 2024.

The Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with a writ of mandamus to direct the Department of Health (DoH) to determine a uniform rate of fees chargeable from patients availing services from the clinical establishments operating in the country, has held that, the Central Government cannot shirk away from its responsibility by merely taking the ground that the communication sent by them have not been responded back by their State’s/Union Territory’s counterparts. The SC further directed the DoH to come up with a mechanism till the next date or otherwise, it will consider adopting rates prescribed for Central Government Health Services to all clinical establishments operating in India, as an interim measure.

The Kerala High Court (Ker. HC) while dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed against the notification(s) issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, on the ground that these notification(s) violate(s) Art. 17 of the Constitution, since it only allowed ‘Malayala Brahmin’ to be eligible for the post of ‘Melsanthies’ (Chief Priests) in Sabarimala Devaswom & Malikappuram Devaswom, has held that, right to worship or entry in a Hindu temple granted to a member of Hindu community under Art. 25(2)(b) of the Constitution is not an absolute right. Further, the Ker. HC relied on Sri Venkataramana Devaru case to note that right under Art. 25(2)(b) of the Constitution is not unlimited right allowing Hindus to worship at all hours of the day, thus the notification is non-violative of Art. 17 of the Constitution.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has filed a case in Federal Court of Australia against Grays eCommerce Group Limited (Grays) – an online auction platform for selling automobiles, heavy machinery, real estate, spirits etc., over false or misleading descriptions about the cars sold through its auction. According to ACCC, Grays, from July, 2020 to June, 2022 made false representations, inter alia, about the make, model, features or undisclosed obvious faults with the cars, for which Grays is liable to pay $10 million penalty.

The Allahabad High Court (All HC), in an appeal filed by a father against the order of maintenance, filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), passed by the Judicial Magistrate’s Court, has held that section 20 r/w. section 12 of the DV Act gives right to also an unmarried daughter, whether Hindu or Muslim, to obtain maintenance irrespective of her age. The All HC further held that, the DV Act provide for rights of maintenance to any aggrieved woman, in a domestic relationship with the respondent, has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.