Shubham brings a wealth of expertise to the table, having honed his skills by working at one of the Big 4s, followed by India’s first law firm management consulting firm and then in-house BD Manager at a leading law firm in India. During his stint at the consulting firm, he provided law firm management guidance to numerous law firms PAN India. Following this, Shubham leveraged his knowledge from a client-side perspective by serving as the in-house Business Development Manager at one of the India’s leading law firm, where he spearheaded the firm’s international business development efforts.

“Having witnessed the challenges faced by law firms of all sizes, I founded LawStrings Management with the vision of delivering tailored growth strategies, both domestically and internationally, using technology, data-driven, results-oriented approach. Our mission is to be the growth partners of the law firms, specifically emerging firms, and craft a sustainable growth path that empowers them and builds a strong foundation during their growth phase”, says Shubham Malhotra, Founder of LawStrings Management. “LawStrings Management offers a comprehensive suite of business development, management and legal technology services tailored to each firm’s unique needs, empowering them to reach to their target audience and build lasting relationships.”

He further adds, “My journey as a law firm management consultant and in-house BD Manager provided me an opportunity to work closely with the numerous law firm Founders and Partners and understand their challenges. At LawStrings Management we have crafted our services in a unique way to provide growth strategies to the law firms of all sizes.” 

The post Shubham Malhotra launches LawStrings Management., A New-Age Business Development Consulting Firm for the Global Legal Industry appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Launched in 2022, Astorg Philanthropy Investments’ objective is to support the transition to a healthier and more inclusive society.

The Latham team was led by Paris corporate partner Simon Lange, with associate Christos Ierna.

The post Latham Advises Astorg Philanthropy Investments on Series A Fundraising of InHeart appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Founded in August 2014 as a sole proprietorship and officially incorporated on January 1, 2015, Aumirah has rapidly become a distinguished player in the legal field. With a diverse team of over 60 professionals, including engineers, scientists, PhDs, and lawyers, Aumirah serves a global clientele of more than 1600 clients. The firm’s dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion, coupled with its commitment to excellence and service, has garnered widespread recognition and numerous accolades.

The new series of newsletters underscores Aumirah’s ongoing commitment to staying at the forefront of legal developments and providing cutting-edge knowledge to its clients. Each newsletter will delve into a specialized area of law, offering in-depth analysis and practical guidance on topics ranging from cybersecurity to fintech, and from IP to competition and investment law.

In a statement, Rahul Bagga, Founder of Aumirah, said, “Aumirah has always been a research-driven IP and corporate law firm, owing to the impressive clientele we serve across different domains of science, technology, and business. We believe we owe it to our clients to always keep ourselves updated and upskilled with various aspects of law, science, and technology. In that pursuit, we are pleased to announce that Aumirah is launching a series of newsletters, each focusing on a special area of law concerning businesses.”

Anuj Kumar, Founder of Legal Desire Media & Consulting, added, “As a Business Development Manager and Consultant for Aumirah, I am thrilled to see this initiative take flight. These newsletters will not only keep the clients and global audience informed but will also showcase the depth of expertise and dedication Aumirah brings to the table. This is a significant step in ensuring our clients are always ahead in the ever-evolving legal landscape.”

The first edition of the newsletter on Global IP will provide valuable insights into the latest trends, legal developments, and best practices in the field of intellectual property. Subsequent editions will cover other pivotal areas of law, ensuring that clients and stakeholders remain well-informed and prepared to navigate the complex legal landscape.

For more information and to subscribe to the newsletter series, visit their website.

About Aumirah

Founded in 2014 and incorporated in 2015, Aumirah has swiftly emerged as a prominent player in India’s IP and legal industry. The firm’s dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion, combined with its commitment to excellence and service, has spawned numerous associations and companies across India and abroad. With a team of over 60 professionals, Aumirah serves a global clientele of more than 1600 clients.

The post Aumirah announces Comprehensive Newsletter Series on Key Legal Topics appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

It is important to clarify the following facts:

Repeated Rejection of Damages Claim: KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran initially sought damages of more than Rs.1300 crore during the arbitration proceedings. This claim was thoroughly examined and subsequently rejected by a panel of three retired Supreme Court judges.

Following this, KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran appealed to the Single-Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, seeking the same amount in damages, which was again rejected by the court.

Notably, they chose not to pursue any appeal before the appellate jurisdiction and consequently, the matter attained finality. This matter is devoid of any merit and appears to be an endeavour to sensationalise the issue and mislead the public.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on May 17, 2024, ruled in favour of SpiceJet and Ajay Singh. Following the success before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, SpiceJet will now pursue a refund of Rs.450 crores as outlined in our previous press release.

The post SpiceJet Refutes Claims by KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran, Labels Damages Claim as Baseless appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

“AI will revolutionize and transform the future of work for professionals across the globe. Thomson Reuters is at the forefront of the AI movement, and we have demonstrated our commitment through the annual investment of more than $100 million in AI,” said Steve Hasker, president and CEO, Thomson Reuters. “Professionals have our unwavering commitment and support as they safely navigate the opportunities and challenges provided by the evolving AI landscape. This is an exciting time as the Thomson Reuters team plans to expand, scale, and upskill at pace.”

Building AI-Powered Capabilities

Following the synergistic acquisition in August 2023, Thomson Reuters is committed to integrating Casetext with its proprietary solutions. Taking a “best of” approach across product development, Thomson Reuters will leverage Casetext to accelerate time to market, blend content with workflows, and expand beyond legal research to provide meaningful benefits to customers across its segments.

Enhancing its flagship product, Thomson Reuters is set to make a new generative AI skill available in Westlaw Precision later this month. Using the new skill named Westlaw Precision AI-Assisted Research, customers will be able to ask complex questions in conversational language and quickly receive synthesized answers. Leveraging innovation from CoCounsel, the new skill will draw from Thomson Reuters industry-leading, trusted content from across statutes, cases, and regulations to quickly resolve queries that used to take hours.

Generative AI skills in Westlaw Precision will be available to customers in the United States on November 15. Find more information here.

In addition, Practical Law customers will be able to benefit from generative AI in a new chat-type interface. Using the new Practical Law Answers, users will be able to submit queries in conversational language and quickly receive answers validated by trusted content created by more than 650 legal experts.

Generative AI skills in Practical Law Dynamic Tool Set are currently in beta and will be available to customers in the United States in January 2024. Find more information here.

“Our entire approach to generative AI starts with our customers, and the solutions we’re announcing today bring together our strongest assets – our leadership in AI, our trusted content, and human expertise. Research that previously took hours can now be delivered in minutes, removing uncertainty, and delivering accurate outcomes, enabling our customers to focus their time where their expertise matters most,” said David Wong, chief product officer, Thomson Reuters.

Strategic Acquisitions: Thomson Reuters continues to build on its strategy of pursuing acquisitions to accelerate generative AI capabilities. In August, the company completed its acquisition of Casetext, a company that uses advanced AI and machine learning to build technology for legal professionals. Through the integration of CoCounsel, its key product, Thomson Reuters will continue working to accelerate breakthroughs in generative AI, driving greater productivity, impact, and efficiency for legal customers.

To deliver value for tax professionals, Thomson Reuters completed its acquisition of SurePrep earlier in the year. SurePrep leverages AI and a consumer-grade, mobile-friendly design to help U.S. accounting firms bolster productivity and profitability. Integrating this acquisition also furthers the company’s efforts to offer seamless, cloud-based workflow solutions to the professionals it serves.

Partnering for Success: As part of Thomson Reuters Ventures, an enterprise technology venture capital fund, the company recently invested in Neo.Tax. Integrated with ONESOURCE Income Tax, Neo.Taxuses AI to apply tax rules and requirements to claim research and development (R&D) expenses, avoiding a manual process that can take companies hundreds of hours, if not months, to complete.  This is in addition to Truewind, which leverages generative AI to automate bookkeeping and financial modelling to empower small and mid-size businesses.

An additional collaboration includes Thomson Reuters working with Microsoft on a contract drafting solution for Microsoft 365 Copilot for Word. The plugin will help professionals unlock the potential of generative AI with legal content from Thomson Reuters products, easily surfacing content within Microsoft Word for faster initial drafting, and allowing users to use their expertise to edit, validate, and build the final document with integrated access to Thomson Reuters knowledge, content, and AI technology.

Intelligent Drafting is currently in beta and will be available to customers in the United States in the first half of 2024. Find more information here.

Upskilling Thomson Reuters Colleagues: Thomson Reuters is highly focused on investing in programs to enable learning and development for its 26,000 colleagues globally who use AI across every team. Based on the company’s  data and AI ethics principles, the company is delivering training and technology to increase colleagues’ understanding of AI in a safe and an effective environment for application and learning, including AI learning pathways with specialized options for technologists and customer-facing sales teams. In addition, Thomson Reuters Labs created Open Arena, an enterprise-wide large language model (LLM) learning environment, which has helped unlock company-wide experimentation with generative AI .

The post Thomson Reuters unveils generative AI strategy designed to transform the future of professionals appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Legal departments are increasingly under pressure to do more with less: 70% report higher matter volumes, yet 66% say that their budgets are flat or declining. While new technologies, including AI, could help improve efficiencies, legal departments say they are facing what the report terms a “technology conundrum.”

Increasing use of technology is a high priority for legal departments with a majority of general counsel (57%) saying that leveraging technology automation is one of their top cost-control strategies. As a result, using technology to improve workflow efficiency is their second-highest priority, ranking behind controlling outside counsel costs. However, only 32% of legal departments’ budgets for legal technology are increasing.

“Corporate legal departments continue to face challenges in making the up-front investments in technology needed to keep pace with expanding workloads,” said Laura Clayton McDonnell, president of the Corporates segment for Thomson Reuters. “Efficiency is more paramount than ever as the volume of work continues to increase, and many legal departments are seeking to bring more work in-house. Technologies, including AI, can not only improve efficiency, but potentially position legal departments to move from being cost centers to growth enablers by assisting in the development of new products and services.”

As far as which technologies legal departments value, e-billing and spend/matter management software rated as the most valuable, followed by e-signature, litigation hold, and legal research. The Future of Professionals Report found that 60% of legal professionals believe AI will result in corporate legal departments moving more work in-house over the next five years, owing to improved efficiency and reduced costs. However, legal professionals also have concerns about AI, including the accuracy of outputs and the need for regulation to govern the ethics of AI.

Legal departments also are conflicted about return-to-office policies, seeking to balance the benefits of face-to-face interaction with the autonomy and flexibility of remote working. However, the decision may be largely out of their hands, as 54% of legal departments say their policies are set by the broader organization.

Download a copy of the 2023 Legal Department Operations Index here.

The post Legal Departments See Higher Matter Volumes but Flat or Declining Budgets: Thomson Reuters 2023 Legal Department Operations Index appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The Appellant and Respondent were shareholders in a joint venture incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The relationship between the shareholders was governed by a shareholders agreement containing an arbitration clause. The issue arose when the Respondent filed a petition in the Cayman Islands to wind up the joint venture on just and equitable grounds. The question on appeal before the JCPC was: Is any part of a petition to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds susceptible to arbitration?

The JCPC answered this question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the Appellant, overturning the decision of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal below and ordering a stay of the winding-up proceedings in favor of arbitration. The JCPC considered that certain matters that underpinned the basis for the Respondent’s winding-up petition must be first determined by arbitration in accordance with the parties’ agreement. A detailed analysis of the judgment will follow.

The Sidley Team, based in Hong Kong, was led by Desmond Ang (Partner), with support from Sophia Tong (Senior Managing Associate) and Christoph Murphy (Managing Associate).

The post Landmark Judgment on Arbitration and Insolvency Law appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The playing field has long been a place in the world of sports where barriers are broken down and social conventions are challenged. Regardless of their race, nationality, or gender, athletes have been praised for their outstanding talents. However, as society changes and our understanding of gender identity deepens, a new chapter in the history of sports has developed, one that examines the acceptance of transgender athletes. There has been endless discourse to determine under which category should transgender athletes be allowed to play; especially whether those who have transitioned from a male to female should get the opportunity to participate under the women’s category or not. This debate has once again gained traction after Sam Ponder’s recent remarks on the issue.
Sam Ponder, an ESPN broadcaster came under fire recently for her comment backing the argument that transgender athletes should not be allowed to participate under the category for women since it leads to questions about competitive advantages, physical differences, and the potential impact on cisgender female athletes. As per Ponder, allowing trans athletes who’ve transitioned from male to female and thus being allowed to participate under female category gain an unfair advantage due to their biologically stronger body. This comment gained mixed feedback with some backing her claim while others slamming her for bigotry. Nancy Amour, in USA Today wrote an article slamming Ponder for what she claims is her screeching about fairness to hide her bigotry towards transgender girls and women especially those who inspite of the numerous hurdles were courageous enough to participate in sports. 

What do the Sport Authorities say ? 

Sports authorities from all around the world have been actively participating in the current discussion about the involvement of transgender athletes. These governing bodies have taken steps to draught regulations that strike a balance between the values of equality and competition because they understand how important it is to create inclusive and fair working environments. Transgender athletes must fulfil requirements set forth by organisations like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and various national sports federations in order to compete in gender-specific divisions. These standards, which strive to level the playing field while respecting the rights and identities of transgender athletes, frequently include hormone therapy and testosterone level restrictions. The approach taken by the authorities highlights the necessity for careful analysis and continuing discussion to guarantee sports fairness.  While organizations like the World Athletics, Scottish Rugby, Fina, England’s Rugby Football Union and the International Rugby League have categorically banned trans women who have transitioned post puberty to participate in any female categories. 

What do the athlete say ?

Diverse players hold a variety of views about transgender athletes competing in sports. Athletes who emphasise the value of equality and celebrate diversity in sports show their support for inclusion. They contend that as long as appropriate rules are in place to ensure fairness, transgender athletes should be given the chance to compete depending on their stated gender. On the other hand, several athletes have worries over unfairness, competitive advantages, and possible effects on cisgender athletes. They need in-depth analyses and rules that take into account the physiological variations brought on by transgender involvement. The viewpoints of athletes add to the continuing discussion by stressing the difficulties and demand for careful deliberation in this issue.

Championing for a middle ground : 

In the world of sports, champions are not solely defined by their athletic prowess but also by their unwavering commitment to inclusivity. Embracing the diversity of athletes, including transgender individuals, is a testament to the true spirit of sportsmanship. By championing inclusivity, we foster a sporting culture that celebrates the human experience in all its forms. It sends a powerful message that every athlete, regardless of their gender identity, deserves an equal opportunity to participate, compete, and excel. Through inclusivity, we not only break down barriers but also create a harmonious and inspiring arena where athletes can showcase their talents and inspire generations to come.

Conclusion : 

In the quest for transgender participation in sports, striking a middle ground that ensures fairness and inclusion is paramount. It requires acknowledging and addressing the concerns raised by both sides of the debate while upholding the principles of equality and respect. Through careful evaluation, expert guidance, and ongoing research, sports authorities can develop guidelines that create a level playing field while honouring the identities of transgender athletes. Moreover, fostering a culture of understanding, empathy, and education among athletes, coaches, and the public is crucial in cultivating an environment where inclusivity thrives. By striving for fairness and inclusion, we can create a future where sports truly become a platform for unity, diversity, and the celebration of human potential.

Author: Shruti Gala

Edited by: Apoorva Mehta

The post Equity and Inclusivity: Transgenders in Sports appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Cuba Gooding Jr., an accomplished actor, recently resolved a civil sex abuse lawsuit that had received a lot of public attention. The civil suit worth $6M was settled moments before the trial began in relation to a woman accusing Gooding of allegedly raping her at his Manhattan hotel room in 2013. Throughout the court procedure, the actor, who is well-known for his parts in films like “Jerry Maguire” and “Boyz n the Hood,” refuted the accusations stating it to be a fully consensual intercourse. However, this settlement agreement prompts important inquiries about the wider implications of similar disputes for the entertainment industry, the meaning of consent, and the power relationships that exist in the world of celebrities.

The Allegations and the Legal Proceedings : 

A woman who accused Cuba Gooding Jr. of raping her in a hotel room in New York City ten years ago has reached a settlement in their legal dispute. The agreement was reached as jury selection was about to start on Tuesday in a federal civil trial where, had the jury found in the woman’s favour, the actor might have been forced to pay millions of dollars in damages. The plaintiff had asked for $6 million in compensation. There was no disclosure of the settlement’s terms. The woman claimed that while out to dinner with a companion in August 2013, she happened to run into the actor. She claims that Gooding asked her to join him in his room while he changed clothes before inviting her to the Mercer Hotel, where he was staying, for cocktails. The lawsuit said that the Oscar winner turned on music, “took a position between her and the hotel room door,” and then began undressing. The woman said that as she attempted to leave, Gooding “blocked her from the door and pushed her onto the bed,” according to the lawsuit. Multiple such allegations have been filed against him by women who claim that Gooding allegedly groped them and sexually abused them. 

Gooding adamantly defended his innocence and entered a not guilty plea to all charges in response to the accusations. Multiple hearings were held during the legal procedure, including a criminal trial that ended with the actor’s acquittal in 2020. Nevertheless, the civil case went forward, with the plaintiffs continuing to call for restitution and accountability for the allegedly wrongdoing.

The Troubling Precedent : 

Concerns have been raised concerning the possible unfavourable precedent that the recent settlement establishes for upcoming cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct. Although the settlement’s terms are confidential, its occurrence might deter victims from turning to the court system for redress.

The message it conveys about the veracity of victims is one unsettling implication. Settlements in high-profile cases may give the impression that the accused is buying their way out of responsibility, whether they are guilty or innocent. This could maintain a culture that denigrates victims and undermines their courage in sharing their stories.

Settlements can also maintain power disparities within the entertainment sector. High-profile people frequently have more available financial resources and legal teams, giving them a leg up when negotiating settlements. This can discourage victims from filing a lawsuit out of a fear that they won’t have the strength to get the justice they deserve. As a result, offenders could continue to avoid accepting full responsibility for their conduct.

Settlements may also be detrimental to the larger campaign against sexual misconduct and the cultural movement towards greater accountability. Trials can act as public forums, highlighting how commonplace such behaviour is and enticing victims to speak up. Cases that are resolved privately lack the transparency and public scrutiny that might help raise awareness and spur change in society. This may result in a vicious cycle of silence and encourage abusive actions.

Conclusion : 

There are unsettling repercussions for upcoming cases of sexual misbehaviour from the settlement in the civil sex abuse lawsuit involving Cuba Gooding Jr. It conveys the idea that settlements can be used to evade responsibility and might damage the victims’ credibility. This precedent exacerbates power disparities, deters victims from seeking redress, and hinders the larger effort to combat sexual misbehaviour. We must keep fostering an atmosphere that helps survivors, promotes openness, and makes sure that everyone receives justice. We can only work towards significant change and build a safer society by maintaining an unrelenting commitment to responsibility.

Author: Shruti Gala

Edited by: Apoorva Mehta

The post Actor Cuba Gooding Jr. Settles Civil Sex Abuse Case: Know the Implications appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Brief Background

Under Armour, Inc, (plaintiff) is a company having its registered office in Maryland USA officially entered Indian Market in 2017. It incorporated its Indian subsidiary under the name “Under Armour India Trading Pvt. Ltd.” in October 2018, and the first physical store opened in India in 2019.

Under Armour holds various registrations under the Trade Marks Act 1999 including the concerned trademarks “UNDER ARMOUR” and “UA” registered under Classes 18, 25 and 28 with effect from 24th February 2009 and 12th January 2011 respectively.

Submissions

Mr. Rishi Bansal, counsel for the plaintiff submitted before the Court the registered marks – UNDER ARMOUR/UA/UNDR ARMR by Under Armour are infringed by Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd. (defendant) on identical goods, using the marks “STREET ARMO/SA/STRT ARMR”. 

While doing so, it is alleged that the defendant is using, for its ― “ARMOR” part of the mark, a font, style and lettering which is deceptively similar to that used by the plaintiff for ― “ARMOUR”. Even while using ― “STREET ARMOR” as a device, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant uses a similar font and lettering for ― “ARMOR” while using a disproportionately small font and lettering for STREET. 

The similarities are demonstrated in the plaint in the following manner:

Mr. Bansal, counsel for plaintiff (Under Armour) argued that ARMOUR is the primary component of UNDER ARMOUR and that infringement occurred because the defendant’s disputed marks also terminate with ARMOUR. That, however, does not justify the Court limiting the scope of examination to the latter, ARMOUR, part of the plaintiff’s marks, when the entirety is asserted. The Court’s role is to determine whether taken as a whole, the defendant’s marks infringe the plaintiff’s or whether, by using the abovementioned marks, the defendant tried to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff. 

The defendant’s counsel, Mr. C.M. Lall to support the argument that “ARMOUR” is descriptive, replied on three facts – 

1. The name “Under Armour” was coined in 1996 to be used as a mark on a specific kind of T-shirt made of moisture-wicking synthetic fabric, that conforms to the description of “under armour”.
2. He further stressed the dictionary meaning of “armour”, which is “clothing, often made of metal that soldiers wore in earlier times to protect themselves”.
3. He submitted that the plaintiff while registering the mark “UNDER ARMOUR” mentioned the items in the class as “protective clothing”.

Court’s Verdict

The Court rejected the arguments that the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Lall on behalf of Aditya Birla (defendant) that the argument did not put much concentration on comparing the complete marks of Under Armourf to those of Aditya Birla. 

The main essence of Under Armour’s submission was that ARMOUR is the dominant part of UNDER ARMOUR and as the defendant’s impugned marks too end with ARMOUR, causing an infringement. Now, the question arises how ARMOUR is making the dominant part of the plaintiff’s mark?

Though it bears no reiteration that while a mark is to be considered in its entirety, it is permissible to accord more or less importance or ‘dominance’ to a particular portion or element of a mark in cases of composite marks. Thus, a particular portion or element of a mark is in cases of composite marks. Thus, a particular element of a composite mark which enjoys greater prominence vis-a-vis other constituent elements may be termed a ‘dominant mark’.

Under this principle, the Court identifies one mark or the other as dominant, and here the Court agreed to the fact that the plaintiff‘s and defendant‘s marks are used for identical goods is of considerable significance in this regard. A customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection may feel confused or by the defendant, of a closely similar manner of abbreviating the STREET ARMOR mark to STRT ARMR,

The Court admitted that there are chances that a consumer may assume that there is a relationship between the mark of the defendant and the earlier mark of Under Armour, which is a ‘prima facie’ infringement. Moreover, following the ruling by the Supreme Court of India, Under Armour can not claim a monopoly on the suffix ARMOUR, therefore the marks are compared as a whole, instead of in their perspective parts.

The Court did not find any merit to the point raised by Mr. Lall and said that “Armour” when used in the context of clothing, especially of sportswear, can not be treated as descriptive, as sports wears are not armorial. However, considering the complete marks in consideration, both parties are using the respective marks on identical goods, which indicates an infringement.

In the Court’s preliminary opinion, the defendant’s marks are recognised as infringing the plaintiff’s marks under Section 29(2)(b)9 of the Trade Marks Act when evaluated as complete marks.

The Court held that on the aspect of infringement and passing off, in favour of Under Armour on merits, an injunction must follow.

The court restrained the defendant from using the impugned marks and logos mentioned or any other mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the said marks of the plaintiff, in respect of apparel or any other goods or services which may be regarded as similar or allied to the goods in respect of which Under Armour uses its marks. 

The Court on the aspect of infringement and passing off, in favour of UnderArmour, allowing an injunction, restraining Aditya Birla from dealing in or using the impugned marks and logos as listed here – STREET ARMOR, STRT ARMR, ARMR, ARMOR, SA, ARMR DEPT, SA DEPT, STREET ARMOR CO., STRT ARMR LAB or any other trademarks/labels that are identical with and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s registered UNDER ARMOUR, UNDR ARMR or UA word marks or device marks or any other mark which may confuse the concerned marks registered by Under Armour, for apparel or any other products or services that is similar or allied to the products or services that the plaintiff uses its marks.

The application for an injunction and passing off stands allowed accordingly.

Appellate Order

Aditya Birla requested the Court that the order to bring into effect after two weeks, to avail the appellate remedies, but the Court did not agree as Order XLI Rule 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Code does not allow to put a stay on its own judgement

Aditya Birla Fashion filed an appeal and challenged this Judgment before the Divisional 2 Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court. 

The Appellate Court however, after a hearing, made it clear that there is no case made out on behalf of Aditya Birla. The Court expressed shock at the obvious dishonesty in the adoption of the mark Street Armor by Aditya Birla. The Court believed that Under Armour is a huge international brand having substantial and senior rights in India also and the marks of Aditya Birla should be restrained. 

At this stage, counsel appearing for Aditya Birla informed the court that they have instructions to give an undertaking that they shall cease the brand altogether. The court has given time of 3 weeks to Aditya Birla to file an undertaking in these terms.

The matter has been listed for May 22nd, 2023.

The post Aditya Birla restrained by Delhi High Court from Infringing Trademark registered by Under Armour appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.