Zuko Engineers Vs. Ministry of Commerce and Indust.

Zuko Engineers vs Ministry of Commerce and Indust.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 24, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702985

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/702985
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Manmohan Sarin, J.
Decided On: Jul 24, 2002
Case Number: CW 370/2002 and C.M. 591/2002
Subject: Intellectual Property Rights

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Patent Law - Renewal of patent--Writ of mandamus--Petitioner seeks directing respondent to accept the renewal fee for renewal of patent in the category of individual--Petitioner sole proprietor of concern M/s. Zuko Engineers--Respondent took the stand that the patentee is Zuko Engineer, fee has to be paid for legal ...

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property Rights

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Zuko Engineers

Advocate Rekha Aggarwal and; Anurag, Advs

Respondent

Ministry of Commerce and Indust.

Advocate Harish Chandra, Sr. Adv. and ; Rajinder Nischal, Adv. for Union of India

Legal References

Reported In: 99(2002)DLT360; 2003(26)PTC199(Del)

Excerpt

patent law - renewal of patent--writ of mandamus--petitioner seeks directing respondent to accept the renewal fee for renewal of patent in the category of individual--petitioner sole proprietor of concern m/s. zuko engineers--respondent took the stand that the patentee is zuko engineer, fee has to be paid for legal entity other than individual--view is erroneous. - manmohan sarin, j.1. the petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to accept the renewal fee of rs. 11,900/- submitted by the petitioner for renewal of patent in the category of individual. the question raised is short one. 2. petitioner has applied for renewal of patent. petitioner happens to be sole proprietor of the concern m/s zuko engineers. the respondents required the petitioner to pay the fee, which was applicable to legal entities other than individuals either alone or jointly. respondents took the stand that since the name of the patentee is zuko engineers, the fee has to be paid for legal entity other than individual. this stand is erroneous in as much as the name of a concern cannot be determinative or decisive of whether the concern is a proprietorship and is owned by individual or is a partnership firm. learned senior counsel mr. harish chandra very fairly states that in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner that he is the sole proprietor of the concern and, there being no other evidence to show that the concern is not a sole proprietorship, the fee chargeable should have been that for an individual. let direction issue to respondents to charge the fee from the petitioner for renewal of a patent that is applicable to individual. the writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to accept the renewal fee of Rs. 11,900/- submitted by the petitioner for renewal of patent in the category of individual. The question raised is short one.

2. Petitioner has applied for renewal of patent. Petitioner happens to be sole proprietor of the concern M/s Zuko Engineers. The respondents required the petitioner to pay the fee, which was applicable to legal entities other than individuals either alone or jointly. Respondents took the stand that since the name of the patentee is Zuko Engineers, the fee has to be paid for legal entity other than individual. This stand is erroneous in as much as the name of a concern cannot be determinative or decisive of whether the concern is a proprietorship and is owned by individual or is a partnership firm. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Harish Chandra very fairly states that in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner that he is the sole proprietor of the concern and, there being no other evidence to show that the concern is not a sole proprietorship, the fee chargeable should have been that for an individual. Let direction issue to respondents to charge the fee from the petitioner for renewal of a patent that is applicable to individual.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2002 Same Parties Zuko Engineers vs Ministry of Commerce and Indust. Same Subject Intellectual Property Rights Same Judge Manmohan Sarin, J.

Intellectual Property Rights