AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
FeaturedIn Hindware v. Grohe, the Delhi High Court clarified the legal standing of keyword advertising and the distinction between generic and trademarked terms. This ruling narrows the safe harbor protections for intermediaries like Google.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court delivered a notable judgment in Bansal v. Philips, deemed a significant step in clarifying SEP and FRAND considerations. This decision addresses essentiality, infringement, and damage calculation in patent law.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court's ruling in Hindware v. Grohe establishes new distinctions in keyword advertising by differentiating between generic and source-identifying marks. This decision narrows the scope for intermediary liability and clarifies trademark law in digital contexts.
FeaturedThe Supreme Court clarified the scope of who qualifies as an 'expert' under Section 63(4) of the BSA, allowing wider certification for digital evidence.
FeaturedThe Supreme Court affirmed that states have the authority to regulate or prohibit betting on skill games, clarifying that Entry 34 encompasses all forms of betting and gambling.
FeaturedThe Reserve Bank of India has communicated essential updates regarding the implementation of Section 51A of the UAPA, 1967, in light of changes to the UNSC Sanctions List, affecting various financial institutions.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court's Division Bench ruling in Bansal v. Philips outlines essential aspects of Standard Essential Patents and FRAND licensing, making it a critical decision for practitioners in IP law.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court in Hindware v. Grohe has differentiated between generic and coined marks in keyword advertising, while limiting the intermediary safe harbor for platforms like Google. This ruling is set to impact trademark infringement standards in digital marketing.
FeaturedThe Gujarat High Court quashed income tax demands for liabilities preceding a resolution plan approval, asserting they were extinguished under the IBC. This decision impedes enforcement of pre-existing tax claims post-insolvency.
FeaturedThe Delhi High Court annulled a ₹160.43 crore addition under Section 40(a)(i), ruling that the Assessing Officer violated mandatory directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). This ruling underscores the significance of adhering to DRP guidelines in tax assessments.
FeaturedThe Supreme Court has held that courts possess the power to modify arbitral awards under specific circumstances, recognizing an implied authority under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to correct manifest errors.
FeaturedThe Supreme Court has affirmed that the hash value and expert certification under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are essential to ensuring the authenticity and integrity of electronic records, reinforcing the framework for digital evidence.
FeaturedThe ITAT ruled that disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) cannot stand if corresponding income has been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS).