- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Titan Gets Relief From Delhi HC Against Snapdeal, Traders Who Sold Counterfeit Watches Under Its Brand Names
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Tata-owned Titan Company has got relief from the Delhi High Court against sellers of counterfeit Titan and Fastrack watches though online retailer Snapdeal.Earlier, Titan had filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court against Snapdeal for not taking down various listings and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) of traders who sold counterfeit Titan and Fastrack...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Tata-owned Titan Company has got relief from the Delhi High Court against sellers of counterfeit Titan and Fastrack watches though online retailer Snapdeal.
Earlier, Titan had filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court against Snapdeal for not taking down various listings and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) of traders who sold counterfeit Titan and Fastrack branded watches, despite being notified of the same by the Titan watch company.
The Delhi High Court passed the order recently, granting a permanent injunction against two sellers, effectively prohibiting them from selling counterfeit wrist watches of the two leading Titan-owned brands, namely Titan and Fastrack.
Also, the two sellers, Rohit Kumar Jain and Dharam Pal, who have been selling counterfeit watches under these brands, have been directed by the court to stop doing so.
These sellers of counterfeit watches have also been directed by the court to grant costs of Rs 1,50,000 each, the Titan watch company said in a recent statement.
The latest court order came on August 23 after a previous order was passed by the Delhi High Court on July 29, in response to a case by the Tata-owned Titan watch company.
The court had passed an order against the two sellers on July 29, alleging that these sellers had sold counterfeit watches under Titan and Fastrack brands on Snapdeal, which amounted to infringement.
The Delhi High Court in its July 29 order had directed online retailer Snapdeal to immediately remove universal resource locators (URLs) of the two sellers who had traded in counterfeit wrist watches after receiving a complaint against them from the Tata-owned Titan watch company.
In addition, the Delhi High Court has also directed online retailer Snapdeal to file a written statement within the prescribed time as well as furnish an affidavit with particulars about all goods sold on its portal under the trademarks Titan and Fastrack.
The next hearing of the case is scheduled for February 20, 2020.