Blinkit vs Blinkhit: Mere Acquisition of Trademark Registration, Without Actual Business Implementation, Cannot Be Considered Conclusive Evidence: Karnataka High Court
Summary
A single judge bench, presided over by Justice S R Krishna Kumar, critically evaluated the grounds on which the trial court had granted the temporary injunction. The court observed that the mere acquisition of trademark registration, without actual business implementation, cannot be considered conclusive evidence. • DNA test ruling out accused as biological father not conclusive proof of rape: Bombay HC • Whether Section 52 TP Act Bars Temporary Injunction Against Alienation of Suit Property? Answers AP HC • Injunction Order Against Third Party Can’t be Passed Without Hearing that Party: Supreme Court • Even a Temporary Employees Can’t be Removed Without Departmental Proceedings, Rules Madras HC “Blinkhit’s alleged business operations were entirely distinct from Blinkit’s nature of service, leading the court to conclude that a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction had not been established”, the bench noted. Considering these factors, the bench determined that the balance of convenience favored Blinkit, as they would suffer irreparable harm and hardship if the injunction were to be imposed.
Classifications
AskAI Classifications
LabelsLinked Companies
