Latest news with #SaurabhBanerjee
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi High Court Protects Domino's Trademark from Unauthorized Pizza Outlets, ET HospitalityWorld
The Delhi High Court has restrained 15 pizzerias from infringing the popular Domino's trademark, underscoring "disastrous consequences" on human health if it was allowed to continue. Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a suit filed by the popular chain Domino's Pizza, a Delaware-based corporation, seeking an ad interim injunction on 15 entities from using deceptively similar marks, such as "Domnic's Pizza, Dominic Pizza, Dominic's Pizza, Domnik Pizza and Daminic Pizza". On May 28, the court in its order said, "It is prima facie evident that the marks of the defendants (15 entities) are deceptively similar and phonetically identical to the plaintiff no 1 (Domino's intellectual property (IP) holder corporation), erstwhile trade name Dominick's Pizza." Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals. Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox. All about ETHospitalityWorld industry right on your smartphone! Download the ETHospitalityWorld App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles. As the dispute involved edible products, the court noted, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity was lower than for other products."In essence, any confusion between such products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health. Therefore, this court has to adopt a more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion and to exercise greater care," the order in favour of the corporation in the interim, the court restrained the outlets and their agents from using the "nearly identical or deceptively similar marks" till the next date of hearing on September court also directed online food aggregators Zomato and Swiggy to de-list, take down and suspend the identical or similar listings of the 15 entities from their mobile application, website or any other the plea, the corporation said Domino's was founded in the year 1960 in Michigan, USA, by Tom Monaghan and his brother James when the brothers purchased Dominick's Pizza, a pizza store owned by Dominick DiVarti in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and in 1965, after the brothers purchased two more restaurants, the name was changed from Dominick's to Domino's to the plea, there were over 21,000 Domino's Pizza stores across all continents, and the corporation had been continuously and uninterruptedly using the trademarks Domino's and Domino's Pizza. PTI
Deccan Herald
18 hours ago
- Business
- Deccan Herald
Delhi High Court restrains pizzerias infringing Domino's trademark
Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a suit filed by the popular chain Domino's Pizza, a Delaware-based corporation, seeking an ad interim injunction on 15 entities from using deceptively similar marks, such as 'Domnic's Pizza, Dominic Pizza, Dominic's Pizza, Domnik Pizza and Daminic Pizza'.
The Print
20 hours ago
- Business
- The Print
Delhi HC restrains pizzerias infringing Domino's trademark
On May 28, the court in its order said, 'It is prima facie evident that the marks of the defendants (15 entities) are deceptively similar and phonetically identical to the plaintiff no 1 (Domino's intellectual property (IP) holder corporation), erstwhile trade name Dominick's Pizza.' As the dispute involved edible products, the court noted, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity was lower than for other products. Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a suit filed by the popular chain Domino's Pizza, a Delaware-based corporation, seeking an ad interim injunction on 15 entities from using deceptively similar marks, such as 'Domnic's Pizza, Dominic Pizza, Dominic's Pizza, Domnik Pizza and Daminic Pizza'. New Delhi, Jun 20 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has restrained 15 pizzerias from infringing the popular Domino's trademark, underscoring 'disastrous consequences' on human health if it was allowed to continue. 'In essence, any confusion between such products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health. Therefore, this court has to adopt a more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion and to exercise greater care,' the order read. Ruling in favour of the corporation in the interim, the court restrained the outlets and their agents from using the 'nearly identical or deceptively similar marks' till the next date of hearing on September 17. The court also directed online food aggregators Zomato and Swiggy to de-list, take down and suspend the identical or similar listings of the 15 entities from their mobile application, website or any other platform. In the plea, the corporation said Domino's was founded in the year 1960 in Michigan, USA, by Tom Monaghan and his brother James when the brothers purchased Dominick's Pizza, a pizza store owned by Dominick DiVarti in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and in 1965, after the brothers purchased two more restaurants, the name was changed from Dominick's to Domino's Pizza. According to the plea, there were over 21,000 Domino's Pizza stores across all continents, and the corporation had been continuously and uninterruptedly using the trademarks Domino's and Domino's Pizza. PTI MNR MNR AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Mint
20-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Reliance-led consortium moves Supreme Court over $1.7 billion KG Basin arbitration setback
New Delhi: A consortium led by Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi high court order that overturned a $1.7 billion arbitral award in its favour in the long-running Krishna-Godavari (KG) Basin gas migration dispute with state-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (ONGC). The consortium, which includes British Petroleum Exploration (Alpha) Ltd and Niko (NECO), filed petitions on 14 May. Both BP and Niko have also filed separate appeals contesting the Delhi high court's ruling. 'Yes, we filed the plea against the high court ruling last week. It remains to be seen when the matter will be listed for hearing,' a person familiar with the matter told Mint, requesting anonymity. An email sent to Reliance on Tuesday afternoon remained unanswered. The Delhi high court's order, issued on 14 February by Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee, set aside a May 2023 single-judge order that had upheld the arbitral award. The division bench declared the award unenforceable, citing multiple legal infirmities. Specifically, the court pointed to four reasons: RIL's failure to disclose a crucial 2003 report (constituting patent illegality); the arbitration not qualifying as international; violation of the public trust doctrine in the context of natural resources; and unjust enrichment, as the consortium profited from gas belonging to ONGC or the government. The verdict was seen as a major win for the central government in one of India's most high-profile energy sector disputes. It also cleared the path for the Centre to recover over ₹ 12,800 crore (approximately $1.7 billion) from the consortium. In a stock exchange filing in March, RIL disclosed that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas had raised a separate demand of $2.81 billion from RIL, BP, and Niko, based on the gas migration findings. The case dates back to April 2000, when RIL and its partners signed a production-sharing contract (PSC) with the government for the KG-D6 block, off the Andhra Pradesh coast. RIL holds a 60% stake in the block, BP owns 30%, and Niko the remaining 10%. In 2013, ONGC raised concerns that gas reservoirs in its blocks might be connected to those in the KG-D6 field. A joint study commissioned by both parties, and conducted by US-based consultant DeGolyer and MacNaughton, confirmed in 2015 that significant quantities of gas had migrated from ONGC's blocks into RIL's. The report estimated the migrated gas to be worth over ₹ 11,000 crore. In response, a panel led by former Delhi high court chief justice A.P. Shah recommended compensation for what it termed 'unjust enrichment.' The government subsequently sought $1.5 billion in compensation, plus $174 million in interest. The consortium contested the claim and initiated arbitration in 2016. In 2018, a three-member tribunal chaired by Singapore-based arbitrator Lawrence Boo ruled 2:1 in favour of RIL and its partners, concluding that the PSC permitted the extraction of naturally migrated gas as long as it occurred within the contract area. The tribunal also directed the government to pay $8.3 million in arbitration costs. The government then challenged the award in the Delhi high court, alleging that RIL had extracted gas without proper authorization and had withheld critical information about reservoir connectivity since 2003.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
RIL moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC ruling in $1.73 billion gas dispute with ONGC
Reliance Industries Ltd ( RIL ) on Tuesday approached the Supreme Court challenging a recent decision by the division bench of the Delhi High Court that overturned a 2018 international arbitral award in its favour. The dispute centers around a $1.729 billion claim over gas migration from ONGC-operated blocks into RIL's Krishna Godavari D6 (KG-D6) block in the Bay of Bengal. The division bench, comprising Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee, in February this year set aside the earlier ruling of a single judge who had upheld the arbitral tribunal's award. That May 2023 decision had rejected the central government's allegations of 'insidious fraud' and ' unjust enrichment ' by RIL and its foreign partners—UK's BP Plc and Canada's Niko Resources. RIL, in its appeal to the apex court, has contended that the division bench had no jurisdiction to re-examine the merits of the case since the matter had been adjudicated through international arbitration. The Mukesh Ambani-led conglomerate argues that the 2018 tribunal ruling—delivered by a three-member panel led by Singapore-based arbitrator Lawrence Boo—was binding under the terms of the production sharing contract (PSC). The tribunal, in a 2-1 majority decision, ruled that the PSC did not restrict contractors from producing gas that had migrated into their licensed areas, effectively dismissing the government's $1.729 billion claim. The roots of the dispute trace back to 2013 when ONGC alerted the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) about suspected reservoir connectivity between its Godavari PML and KG-DWN-98/2 blocks and RIL's KG-D6 block. In response, the Delhi HC ordered an independent technical review in 2014, appointing US-based DeGolyer and MacNaughton (D&M). D&M's 2015 report confirmed reservoir connectivity and concluded that RIL's production activities could deplete ONGC 's reserves. This led the government to formally raise a demand of $1.55 billion in 2016, along with an additional $175 million in profit petroleum, citing unjust enrichment . RIL refuted the claims and invoked international arbitration under the PSC framework. The legal battle has now reached India's highest court, with RIL seeking to reinstate the arbitration award and challenge the HC's interference in a matter it believes was conclusively settled by the arbitral tribunal. The Supreme Court is yet to list the matter for hearing.
