Delhi High Court prevents Prasar Bharati from using “DISH” for its DTH services
The Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC/Court”) in the case of Dish TV India Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) v. Prasar Bharti (“Defendant”) prevented the Defendant from using the word “DISH” for its services. This decision was taken because the Defendant adopted the name “FREE DISH” for their product and Defendant’s use of “DISH” was infringing Plaintiff’s trade mark “DISHTV”. The Defendant also adopted a logo which was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s logo.
The Plaintiff’s use of “DISH” is a distinctive element of its trademark which is integral to their brand. The Defendants claimed that the word “DISH” is a common term which means that the Defendant has a public right to use it to brand its products.
The Court’s decision was granted on the basis of the fact that the Defendant was capable of providing his services without using “DISH” from 2004 to 2014. Further, the Court held that “DISH” is not a generic word in relation to Direct-to-Home (“DTH”) services which would prevent other DTH service providers from claiming its essentiality to describe the services.
Quick View:
This judgement highlights that a trade mark which is integral and prominent to the company’s identity is protected depending on the basis of – whether it is the original user, first adopter, prior user, and registered proprietor of the trade mark.
Daily Wage Employees appointed on temporary basis cannot ask for regularization: Madras HC
The Madras High Court (“Madras HC/Court”) in the case of Vijayan (“Petitioners”) v. Secretary to the Government (“Respondents”) decided that daily wage employees who are appointed on a temporary basis cannot ask for permanent absorption or regularization.
The Petitioners were water supply assistants who were daily wage employees on a temporary basis. They filed a Writ Petition for the Court to direct the Respondents to regularize their services upon completion of five or ten years of service. The Petitioners also wanted salary and service-related benefits as well. The Court stated that appointments should be as per the recruitment rules which are in force, and the Petitioners cannot seek benefits of regularization if it is against the recruitment rules.
Quick View:
Courts generally do not issue directions to any authorities to regularize the services of employees who are not appointed in accordance with the effective recruitment rules. Employment benefits can be granted only if the employee is permanently absorbed or his services are regularized.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.