Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Sitaldas Dhirani

Decided On : Jul-01-2016

Court : Kolkata

LAW: Section 134(2, the Copyright Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 62, the Copyright Act, Chapter, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 62, the Copyright Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20, Section 62, the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, Section 20, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 62, the Copyright Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20, Section 20, Section 62, the Copyright Act, Section 62, the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, Section 62, the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 62, the Copyright Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 16, Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Section 62, the Copyright Act, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20 of the Code, Section 20 of the Code, Section 62, the Copyright Act, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 62, the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act

CARDINAL: 1, 10, 134, 134, 2, 1).a, 5, more than one, 62, 1, 2, 1).a, 5, 1908).or, more than one, 20, more than one, more than one, 18, one, 12, 20, 3, three, 64, 64

PERSON: CIVIL JURISDICTION G.A.1802, JUSTICE, Sudipto Sarkar, Siddhartha Mitra, Ratnanko Banerji, Moushumi Bhattacharya, D.Gomes, A.Deb, Ranjan Bachawat, Debnath Ghosh, Sushanta Dutta, Chanchal Kumar Dutt, Krishna Mullick, Prithwiraj Sinha, Souvik Mitra, Atish Ghosh, Arindam Chanda, Kumar Chaubey &

DATE: 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2015, 1908, 1908, 17, 2008, 2015, 2015

ORG: UNILEVER LIMITED -VsSUSHIL, the Respondents The Court, Court, the Hindustan Unilever Limited, the Supreme Court, Indian Performing Rights Society Limited, Dalia & Anr, the Trade Marks Act, Court, the Apex Court, Indian Performing Rights Society (Supra, Court, Court, the Trade Marks Act, District Court, District Court, the District Court, District Court, Court, Court, the India Performing Rights Society Limited’s, the High Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held:“18, CPC, CPC, words:“25, CPC, the Delhi Court, The Delhi Court, Parliament, The Apex Court, the Supreme Court, Court, Court, Court, Indian Performing Rights Society (Supra, the High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Wipro Limited, Aushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic, Court, District Court, The Apex Court, Indian Performing Rights Society (Supra, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court, The Foundry Visionmongers LTD.–versus Satyanarayana Reddy S, the Supreme Court, Indian Performing Rights Society (Supra, the Delhi High Court, Ultra Home Construction PVT.LTD.–versus Purushottam, Indian Performing Rights Society (Supra, Indian Performing Rights Society (Supra, the Delhi High Court, the Letters Patent

GPE: India, Mumbai, India, Delhi, Delhi, Mumbai, Mumbai, the State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, Delhi, Mumbai, Mumbai, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari, etc.at, India, Bombay, Delhi, Delhi

LOC: District Court.----(1, Madras

FAC: Port Blair, Port Blair

PRODUCT: Calcutta