Background Following the Classic Trinity Test, Serum Institute of India successfully defends the trademark “COVISHIELD” for its own Covid-19 vaccine in a passing-off action brought by a Nanded-based patented firm.  The Bombay High Court’s recent decision denouncing Cutis Biotech’s petition to prevent SII from ever using trademark ‘Covishield’; for its vaccine has laid the groundwork for the reduction of vexatious lawsuits. The Hon’ble Court, through discarding Cutis Biotech’s appeal; stated that ‘Covishield’ is a widely known Coronavirus vaccine. The State’s Vaccine Administration Program will be confused and disrupted; if a temporary restraining order directing SII to stop using the mark “Covishield”. In this case, an injunction would have far-reaching consequences that would extend further than the parties to the lawsuit. Procedural History Before the District Judge : Nanded Around December 2020, a Nanded-based patented firm, through its sole proprietor Mrs Archana Ashish Kabra, filed a lawsuit toward Serum Institute of India (herein referred to as SII) and Anr. (one, Mr. Bhandaru Srinivas), desiring an order of injunctive relief prohibiting SII from using the trademarks ‘Covishield’ and/or ‘Covid shield’ for their COVID-19 vaccine. Cutis Biotech asserted that they had adhered to the trademark “Covishield” before SII, and also that their sanitisers and disinfectants had begun to circulate throughout the market under the same title. SII filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; requesting that the plaint be dismissed on the grounds that the lawsuit was just not maintainable under section 134(2) of the Trademark Act, 1999. Before the Commercial Court: Pune Cutis Biotech submitted a Commercial Suit in the District Court of Pune; together with an appliance for a temporary injunction, while the Nanded suit had been pending adjudication. Contentions: Cutis Biotech It was contended; that they coined the term “Covishield” for pharmaceutical and

The Apex Court, while issuing a notice in a plea filed by Central Government, stayed the proceedings under a petition which had been filed before the Kerala High Court to challenge the grant of 10% reservation in jobs and admissions to the candidates falling under the category of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The Central Government had sought for a transfer of the petition from Kerala High Court to the Apex Court on the ground that the instant court had already seized the matter. The petitioner in his petition contended that the Articles inserted by way of 103rd Constitutional Amendment stand invalid as it extended reservation to EWS on ground of economic growth. The petition filed before the Kerala HC is not one of its kind against the reservation which has been extended to the economically weaker sections. According to a record, a batch of petitions have been pending before the Supreme Court which have unanimously challenged the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The new amendment to the Indian Constitution provides horizontal reservation for economically weaker sections in jobs and education. By virtue of Articles 15(6) and 16(6), the EWS quota of 10% would be in addition to the earlier reservations i.e. SC, ST and OBC. At the time of former CJI, Justice SA Bobde, similar issues had been referred to a 5-judge bench in the case of Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India. The bench raised the issues- whether posts could be reserved solely on the basis of economic criterion, and whether EWS quota in excess of 50% ceiling limit justifiable. The bench led by former CJI had observed that the issue involves substantial question of law and ought to be resolved as it concerns the upliftment of EWS, but not at the cost of culmination of opportunities for the

bout the Centre For Advanced Studies In Criminal Law RGNUL has established the Centre for Advanced Studies in Criminal Law (CASCL) to undertake: advanced study and research in the emerging areas of criminal law; professional training including sensitization on application and enforcement of criminal law in the fair and coherent manner; research projects independently or in collaboration with professional organisations at the national and international level; to bring about publications and produce study material on various aspects of criminal law and to organize seminars, workshops and conferences on contemporary and significant issues of criminal law. bout the Competition CASCL brings to students its Essay Writing Competition in order to provide writers a platform to test their adroitness for writing and an opportunity to explore a wide range of challenging and interesting questions beyond the college curriculum. The objective of the competition is to encourage students to inculcate an interest for studies in criminal law along with a passion for writing. Theme Exploring Gender Justice: The Laws and the Lacunae Eligibility The competition is open to students enrolled in UG Or PG courses from any recognised university. Prizes 1st Prize: ₹10, 000 2nd Prize: ₹7, 000 3rd Prize: ₹5, 000 ‌E-Certificates shall be awarded to top 10 entries E -Certificate of Participation shall be awarded to all the participants. Registration Registration is free of cost. Link to register: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe3173gACb5JJ2fExVfwpPFqiOIzrnPky9P53cdYgbkgycUaA/viewform Deadline Deadline for submission and registration is 10th November 2021, 11:59pm. Please go through the Brochure for more details. For any further queries, contact- Tanya Mayal- +91 8196019150 (Convenor, CASCL) Rishav Devrani- +91 7895191377 (Convenor, CASCL) Poster for the Event The post Essay Writing Competition hosted by Centre for Advanced Studies in Criminal Law, at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab appeared first on LexForti Legal News & Journal. Did you

Introduction The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is one of four Labour Codes included in the Central Government’s largest reform scheme in decades. It incorporates three major Central laws pertaining to industrial dispute resolution and collective bargaining arrangements, namely: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Trade Unions Act, 1926Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 aimed to provide workers with a mechanism that gives them relief against layoffs, retrenchment, and wrongful dismissal that is against the letter of the law. It also aimed to promote good labor relations by limiting the scope for illegal strikes and lockouts and penalizing unfair labor practices. As a result, it included a dispute resolution mechanism as well as restrictions on layoffs, retrenchment, and lockouts to ensure that collective bargaining could take place in a friendly environment. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 aimed to provide workers with better working conditions, higher wages, protection from predatory employment, and a fair share of the company’s profits, and to that end, it granted workers the right to form an association and bargain collectively. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 aimed at providing standardized terms and conditions of work to all workmen in a particular establishment. As a result, the practice of having discriminatory employment contracts was abolished, and employees were made aware of their rights. It promoted industrial peace and harmony by ensuring fair labor practices for employers. Scope and Applicability of the Code The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is intended to consolidate and amend the laws governing Trade Unionsworking conditions in Industrial Establishments, and the swift resolution of industrial disputes. The code regulates the subsequent areas: Registration of Trade UnionCancellation of Trade UnionAlteration in Name of Trade UnionFormation of Work CommitteeIncorporation of a Registered Trade UnionRecognition of Negotiating UnionPreparation of Standing OrderRegister of Standing OrderConstitution of

The Apex Court, while allowing an appeal, gave a wide interpretation to Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and made an observation that a “dependent” mother-in-law of a deceased can rightfully file motor accident claim petition. In the instant case, the High Court of Kerala had held that petitioner (mother-in-law) could not be entitled to be a legal representative under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and thus dismissed her petition. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal. The counsel on behalf of petitioner contended that petitioner had been living with the deceased and his family members and thereby is entitled to be treated as a legal representative for the purpose of determining the compensation. The counsel further raised the issue whether the High Court had been justified in precluding petitioner as a legal representative of deceased. The bench addressed the issue by noting that Motor Vehicle Act does not explicitly define “legal representative.” The bench defined the term as person who has been legally empowered to represent the estate of deceased person and receive compensatory benefits. The bench clarified that a legal representative might not necessarily be a legal heir. Moreover, it emphasized on the fact that the term be given wider interpretative w.r.t the Chapter XII of Motor Vehicle Act and not be confined to spouse, parents and children of deceased. The bench highlighted the objective of this legislative, which is to provide monetary relief to the family of victims, and called for liberal interpretation in order to accomplish the underlying objective. The bench also observed that nowadays it is not uncommon for the Indian Society to see a mother-in-law residing with her daughter and son-in-law. It agreed to the fact that mother-in-law can be a dependent on her son-in-law for maintenance. The

The Supreme Court gave its order on the Pegasus Snooping case by stating that the petition raised an “Orwellian concern” about the alleged possibility of misusing the 21st century technology for the purpose of hearing, seeing and knowing information which had been supposed to be known by respective individual. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India had made several observations regarding the allegations against the government for intruding the privacy of general public. It observed that it is its duty to uphold the constitutional expectations, rule of law and principles of natural justice without being affected by political rhetoric. However, it clarified that political thicket would not under any circumstance prevent the judiciary from raising voice against abuse of fundamental rights. It addressed the issue of vulnerability of data stored in the cloud and stated that the technology can be useful and at the same time, might breach one’s private space by sharing the information with unauthorized authorities. The Apex Court’s take on breach of individual’s privacy included every citizen’s right to be protected against violations of privacy. The bench reiterated that restrictions, if any, should pass the constitutional scrutiny as the restrictions ought to bear reasonable explanation. Furthermore, the bench observed that surveillance is permitted, only when the statute provides so. Unless the surveillance runs on constitutional grounds, it could not be questioned by judiciary. However, the alleged intrusion/surveillance had been conducted without any mention of national security or national interest. The bench also highlighted the protection to journalistic sources as the same remains primary condition for the freedom of press. The snooping techniques had potential chilling effect and had raised grave allegation on the infringement of basic fundamental rights. The bench upheld the celebrated values like governmental transparency and openness as the same ensure free flow of

Ahlawat & Associates (“A&A”) has recently advised Dev Clever Holding PLC/ Dev Clever, a listed company established in UK, engaged in the business of designing and developing software and technology specialized in the use of lightweight integrations of cloud-based gamification and virtual reality technologies across both the commercial and education sectors (“Acquirer”), on the acquisition of Veative Labs Private Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore based educational technology company i.e., Veative Labs Pte. Ltd. (“Singapore Holding Company”) involved in the business of delivering educational content through immersive technologies. The transaction was multi-geographical wherein the Acquirer being a listed company in the UK acquiring an Indian wholly-owned subsidiary from its Singapore Holding Company. A&A advised the Acquirer on the above transaction including conducting legal due diligence and closing of the transaction documents. The approximate deal value is INR 500 billion. A&A Team included Mr. Uday S. Ahlawat (Managing Partner), Ms. Kavita Patwardhan (Partner), Ms. Disha Toshniwal (Senior Associate), Mr. Aman Chadha (Senior Associate), Ms. Shramona Sarkar (Associate), Mr. Sarthak Chawla (Associate) and Mr. Garv Sood (Associate).  “This transaction was particularly interesting for us since it involved multiple parties from multiple jurisdictions and the brainstorming involved in structuring and closing the transaction documents. It was a wonderful experience to be leading this transaction.” Kavita Patwardhan, (Partner) Ahlawat & Associates The post Deal Update: A&A advises Dev Clever Holding PLC on the acquisition of Veative Labs Private Limited appeared first on LexForti . Did you miss our previous article… https://www.itcse.org/?p=322

If you’ve been evicted, there’s a good chance that your housing problems aren’t over, even if you’ve turned your financial situation around. Evictions are a serious matter, which is why having an eviction on your record could bring long-lasting consequences. Let’s discuss where evictions records show up, where they don’t show up, and how you might avoid an eviction or clear an old record. Got a legal question? Get legal advice in minutes. Real Lawyers. Real Answers. Right Now. Get your answer How would an eviction affect me in the future? There are two main ways an eviction can affect you. First, being evicted doesn’t erase any money you owed to your landlord. If you owed back rent, the court that issued your eviction will generally give your landlord a judgment that allows them to collect the money you owed, plus court and other collection costs. Second, landlords often won’t rent to someone with an eviction. It shows that you had a serious problem with a past landlord through either not paying rent or committing serious rule violations. For these reasons, you want to avoid one whenever possible. One option is to use mediation to reach some other type of settlement. You may also want to research if your state has a current eviction moratorium or try to work out a payment plan with your landlord. Do evictions show up on background checks? There are both direct and indirect ways an eviction can show up on a background check. Housing court case: A landlord gets an official eviction by going to housing court (the exact name of the court varies by jurisdiction). Public court records include when a tenant has had an eviction filed against them as well as the outcome of those proceedings. Most landlord background checks check these

COVID-19 has led to a marked increase in online transactions, triggering a huge spike in cases of identity theft. There are many steps you can take to reduce the odds of becoming a victim, such as recognizing the telltale signs of identity theft. Another way you can protect yourself is by implementing a credit freeze, which can help curb the flow of personal data.  Understanding what a credit freeze does and how to use it effectively will help you add an additional layer of protection to stop identity theft before it happens. Worried about identity theft and fraud? Prepare the documents needed to file reports and freeze accounts. We make it fast, affordable, and simple. Get started now Is freezing my credit a good idea? Credit card fraud can create years of problems for victims. Though nothing provides fool-proof protection against fraud, a credit freeze is a simple tool (with legally mandated compliance) that stops the credit bureaus from selling your data. When you do want a creditor to access your credit report, you enter a PIN to temporarily unfreeze it.  The added layer of protection makes it much more difficult for scammers to open accounts in your name because they can’t access your credit report. A credit freeze protects against fraud as long as you keep that PIN secure. It’s also free and has no impact on your credit score. Since COVID-19 identity theft schemes are on the rise, now could be a good time to consider using this tool. How do I put a freeze on my credit? You can request to have your credit frozen through the three main credit bureaus—Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax—online. You can also print a Credit Freeze Request and mail it to each credit bureau individually. Along with the letter, you will need:

The Apex Court, while allowing an appeal, made an observation that Right to Equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a vested right and it appears to be violated when equals are treated unequally. According to the appellant, the State government had accepted the proposal of KUDA to allot 200 sq. yard developed plot free of cost to each of the 134 ex-employees of a mill in the form of a rehabilitation and welfare measure. Knowing this, the 318 other retired workers who had opted for voluntary retirement along with the previous 134 workers made a representation before the government for allotting them the plot. However, the government rejected their request. Aggrieved by this, the workers’ approached High Court. The single-bench High Court had allowed the writ petition, but upon appeal, the Division bench had set aside the judgment. The appellants’ then approached the apex court wherein they contended that there stands no reasonable differentia between the 134 ex-employees who had taken voluntary retirement and remaining 318 who had also taken up the benefit of voluntary retirement. The bench accepted the contentions made by appellant and stated that for a classification to be valid, they must stand two tests- the distinguishing rationale should be based on a just objective and the choice of differentiating two sets of persons ought to bear a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The bench further observed that there had been no justification for treating 318 ex-employees different from the 134 ex-employees. Therefore, the bench restored the single bench judgment and directed the state government to allot plots to the remaining 318 ex-employees as well. The post Right vested under Art. 14 violated when equals treated unequally- SC appeared first on LexForti .