We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Bombay High Court which, while dealing with the issue of disparagement by a video blogger, laid down the principles by which any such video or any statement can be considered to be defamatory. The Division Bench had held that mere expressions of facts cannot be considered as defamation or disparagement, provided that facts asserted are substantiated. It however held that if the expression of an opinion is based on undisclosed or implied facts, the speaker is liable for making a defamatory statement, provided that the recipient believes the truth of such undisclosed or implied defamatory fact. According to the author, it would have been equally important and interesting if the Division Bench would have also answered the question of law framed by it relating to the additional responsibility supposedly placed on social media influencers vis-à-vis opinions expressed by others in non-commercial ventures...
Ratio decidendi
Trademarks – Identifying features of the names to be compared – Delhi High Court
Trademarks – Spill-over of international reputation to India needs to be established – Delhi High Court
Trade dress when crucial for distinguishing raw tobacco by relevant consumers – Bombay High Court
News Nuggets
Functioning of Trade Marks Registry – Delhi High Court issues various directions and asks stakeholders to submit suggestions
Copyrights – Bombay High Court refuses to grant interim injunction against ‘De Dhakka 2’ and in favour of copyright owner of ‘De Dhakka’
3D trademarks – When does a shape gives a ‘technical result’ or ‘substantial value’ – CJEU provides insights
Disparaging advertisements – Lifebuoy soap and Dettol Antiseptic Liquid whether not comparable?
