Monthly Archives: January 2012

No confusion between PLAX and CLAX

Intellectual Property Appellate Board (India) ruled that Colgate-Palmolive’s trademark PLAX and Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited trademark CLAX are not similar as the goods for which the respective trademarks are used are different even though both the trademarks fall in Class 5. … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Inter-caste offsprings can’t be denied quota benefits:Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India held that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis … Continue reading

Posted in Constitution Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Section 514 of URAA does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution: US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court ruled that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution. The Court said “The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No deduction for Rio Tinto under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

In am important decision, Delhi High Court ruled that even though Rio Tinto Technical Services (assessee) income in India was chargeable to tax as “business profits” under Article 7 and not as “fees for technical services” under Article 12 of … Continue reading

Posted in Income Tax Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Onus on Revenue Dept. to show that agent in India of a foreign company is not an agent of independent status under Indo French DTAA: ITAT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai) ruled that the onus is on the Revenue Department to show that the agent in India of a foreign company is not an agent of independent status within the meaning of Article 5(6) of Indo … Continue reading

Posted in Income Tax Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Section 304 Part II and Section 338 of Indian Penal Code are mutually exclusive: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India clarified that Section 304 Part II and Section 338 of Indian Penal Code are mutually exclusive and can coexist. A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which he … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Loss of earning to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India clarified that in the context of loss of future earning; any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the … Continue reading

Posted in Labor Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment