The said mark and the artistic representation thereof have been acquired by the Plaintiff pursuant to agreement dated 27 March 2000, together with the goodwill thereof and the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark M-SEAL and/or marks consisting of M-SEAL as one of its leading, essential and distinctive features.
Plaintiff’s earliest trade mark registration bearing no. 282168 [is] in respect of the mark M-SEAL, dated 16th August 1972, claiming use from 1st December 1968… The registrations are valid and subsisting and the entries appearing on the register of trade marks including the dates of use thus constitute prima facie evidence of such facts.
It is stated that the Plaintiff's M-SEAL registration bearing No. […] contains a disclaimer with regard to the word PHATAPHAT, however the mark as a whole is registered and to that extent all features taken as a whole stand protected by the registration. Further, it is stated that registration bearing no. […] contains a disclaimer with regard to the word SEAL and the registrations bearing nos. […] have a condition imposed on it viz “Registration of this trade mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of all other descriptive matters appearing on the label”. However, the Plaintiff states that these conditions do not limit the rights of the Plaintiff including for reasons set out hereinafter and in any event the rest of the M-SEAL registrations have no conditions/limitations.
The unique and distinctive artistic representation of M-SEAL i.e., (including in particular the unique line below the mark which is an extension from the first letter of the mark) as well as the M-SEAL Labels are original artistic works in respect of which copyrights subsist and such copyrights are owned by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff states that in or about December 2020, the Plaintiff was shocked and surprised to come across sealant products of the Defendant being sold under the mark R-SEAL, which mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark M-SEAL... The said product of the Defendant is identical to the M-SEAL product of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s product also bears an impugned packaging/labels/ trade dress which is a reproduction of and/or in appearance, almost identical or deceptively similar to the M-SEAL products of the Plaintiff, and the M-SEAL Labels… The impugned products of the Defendant also bear the impugned identification mark JHAT-PAT that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s identification mark PHATAPHAT.
In comparing rival marks / labels to consider whether they are similar, the Supreme Court in Cadilla Healthcare Limited v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Limited, 2001 (2) PTC 541 SC10 lays down that attention and stress is to be given to the common features in the two rather than on differences in essential features.
[Source: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy 1-IA (L) 15502 of 2021 in Comm. IP. Su. 147 of 2022. Decision of Justice R. I. Chagla of the Bombay High Court, 11 November, 2022]
The main complaint against the Defendant in the case excerpted above is that their mark is “______” to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
- reasonably close in expression
- same as
- different from
- deceptively similar
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
In order to prove infringement of copyright here, the Defendant’s work:
- should be the exact reproduction of the Plaintiff's work/label
- looks similar to or like a copy or is reproduction of substantial part of the Plaintiff's work
- bears no resemblance to the Plaintiff's work/label
- should be created only by the Defendant or its authorised agents
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Which one of the following is not part of the Plaintiff’s claim for infringement in this case?
- trademark
- tagline
- patent
- trade dress
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
What is the test of prior use of trademark?
- open, continuous, extensive, uninterrupted use and promotion for a long time
- owner waives rights over trademark and permits subsequent use of the mark
- reasonable parody, comment of a registered trademark
- use of trademark in good faith mainly for a descriptive purpose
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, applicable in this case, considers which of the following as an infringement of a trademark?
- Misrepresentation of ownership of a trademark
- Infringement of an unregistered trademark
- Interference with exclusive right to use a registered trade mark
- Infringement of a registered trademark by use of an identical or deceptively similar trademark in relation to identical or similar goods
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Use of a trademark violates exclusive rights of the prior user or proprietor when:
- usage has introduced differences or changes in the work
- usage is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst members of the trade and public
- usage of the work is authorised by the user or proprietor
- the trademark enjoys goodwill
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Dilution of a brand by the Defendant would result in commission of which of the following?
- a civil wrong
- not actionable per se
- a criminal wrong
- violates fundamental rights
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
What is the defence of acquiescence?
- no confusion or difference in essential features of the trademark
- waiver of right over trademark and permission for use of the mark
- invalidity of the registered trademark
- use of the trademark in good faith
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Which decision established the three elements of passing off, otherwise known as the “Classical Trinity”?
- Academy of Motion Picture Arts v. GoDaddy.Com, Inc., (2015)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora and Another, (1999)
- Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc., (1990)
- Coca-Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd., (2009)
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Which of these is not, in itself, a defence to infringement of a registered trademark?
- honest and concurrent use
- acquiescence
- prior adoption and use
- fair use
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Top Questions on Intellectual Property Law
- Which of the following is not an act included in the exclusive rights of performers under Section 38A(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Intellectual Property Law
- Which of the following international agreements provides an international registration system for appellations of origin?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Intellectual Property Law
- Intellectual Property Rights are historically classified as:
- AILET IP-JOINT MASTERS - 2025
- Intellectual Property Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- The concept of first sale doctrine means:
- AILET IP-JOINT MASTERS - 2025
- Intellectual Property Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Intellectual Property rights are generally considered as:
- AILET IP-JOINT MASTERS - 2025
- Intellectual Property Law
- Intellectual Property Law
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts