Advanced Search Results

Caterpillar Inc. Vs. Kailash Nichani and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 62; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20 and 151 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4

Reported in : 2002IIAD(Delhi)894; 97(2002)DLT304; 2002(24)PTC405(Del)

legal provision was also taken. It was submitted that the case of the plaintiff could neither fall under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the reliance … these products enjoys good reputation in India. The plaintiff is also claiming protection of these marks under Indian Copyright Act, 1957. It is stated that every licensed product of the plaintiff carries a circular seal bearing the CAT logo

Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat Vs. Bindumadhav

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Subject : MRTP

back of the Association, in the year 2001, the defendant got registered aforesaid title and monogram under the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as œAct of 1957? for short) in is own name and he has shown himself … view of law developed, not only the provisions of Section 62 of Act 1957 but the provisions of Section 20 of CPC also needs to be keep in mind. 9. In the case of Begum Sabiha Sultan Vs. … observation needs to be keep in mind while considering the object behind provision of Section 62 of the Act 1957. Section 62 of Act 1957 is as under: œ62. Jurisdiction of Court over matters arising under this Chapter:- (1)

Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs. Rajmoti Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20(2) - Order 7, Rule 11; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 62 and 62(2); Trade Marks Act - Sections 134(2)

Reported in : 115(2004)DLT212; 2005(30)PTC38(Del)

in the plaint. 11. The Division Bench has also erred in its construction of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 62 reads: '62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter.__(1) Every suit or other civil proceedings … that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 20(2) of the Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as the `Cr. Act', `T.M. Act' and the `Code') indicate the

The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 105 and 106; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 62 and 62(2); Designs Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9, 20 and 21 - Order 2, Rule 3 - Order 7, Rules 1, 10 and 11; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 134(2)

Reported in : LC2007(1)58; 2006(33)PTC561(Del)

further proceedings on 20.11.2006. Intellectual Property Rights - Territorial jurisdiction - Composite suit - Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of trademark, infringement of

Modern Food Industries (i) Limited Vs. Modern Bakery and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 20(1), 29 and 34; ;Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2 and 48

Reported in : 2006(4)CHN65,2007(34)PTC504(Cal)

company by its advertising agency for valuable consideration and is an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 of which copyright vests exclusively with the said company.8. The said company … was registered as a copyright in favour of the company being No. A-9291/73 under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.5. The said company expanded its activities over time from one production unit in 1956 to 14 bakery units … Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. The appeal being A.P.0.T. No. 32 of 2006 was filed by the appellant/petitioner Modern Food Industries (I) Limited (hereinafter referred

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : CivilIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 33, 62, 62(2) and 62(2)(1); Companies Act, 1956; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 4, 20 and 202

Reported in : LC2007(3)204

Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit by virtue of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as the plaintiff 'carries on business' through its branch office situated at B-317, Som Dutt Chamber-1, Bhikaji Cama … additional forum where a plaintiff could institute the suit. But this did not mean that the provisions of Section 20 CPC have to be ignored. Only the impediment that was placed by Section 20 CPC with regard to

Saranya Zaveri and anr. Vs. Kamadon Academy P. Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Company

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 134, 134(1) and 134(2); Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13, 40, 55, 62, 62(1) and 62(2); Kerala Stamp Act - Sections 33; Corporations Act, 2001 - Sections 45A, 114, and 127(1); Evidence Act - Sections 85; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 15 to 20, 21, 26, 43, 115 and 151 - Order 3, Rule 1 - Order 7, Rule 1, 8, 10, 11 - Order 8, Rule 3 - Order 43, Rule 1; Constitution of India - Article 227

Reported in : [2006]133CompCas546(Ker); 2008(38)PTC554(Ker)

1, Civil Procedure Code and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and proprietor of the marks Kamadon and … the said statement can-not be blindly accepted to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Ernakulam court. The Explanation to Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code obviously applies only to a defendant and not to a plaintiff. Even if

Exphar Sa and anr. Vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 60, 62, 62(1) and 62(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11

Reported in : AIR2004SC1682; 2004(2)AWC1515(SC); 2004(73)DRJ663; JT2004(3)SC1; (2004)2MLJ156(SC); 2004(28)PTC251(SC); 2004(2)SCALE589; (2004)3SCC688

contained in the plaint.11. The Division Bench has also erred in its construction of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 62 reads: '62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter. - (1) Every suit or other … ground for attracting the jurisdiction of a Court over and above the 'normal' grounds as laid down in Section 20 of the Code.14. Even if the jurisdiction of the Court were restricted in the manner construed by the

Smithkline Beecham Plc and Another Vs. Mr. Sunil Singhi and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 20 - Order 7, Rule 10 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 62(2); Copyright Act, 1956; Marks Act - Sections 55(1);

Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)849; 91(2001)DLT461; 2001(2)RAJ446

entertained and tried in Delhi or any other Court in India. He argued that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') did not permit the dispute to be adjudicated in Delhi especially since … upon by this Court. He has relied on Section 55(1) of the Marks Act and also focused on Section 20 of the C.P.C. Mr. Singh also argued that Plaintiff No.2 is a 100% subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 1

South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, Madras and ors. Vs. Entertainin ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984 - Sections 9(2), 10(2), 15 and 20; Constitution of India - Articles 245 and 246; Copyright Act, 1957; Cinematograph Certification Rules, 1983

Reported in : JT1995(1)SC63; 1994(5)SCALE314; (1995)2SCC462; [1994]Supp6SCR674; 1995(1)LC474(SC)

Government a letter of consent got from the first owner of the copyright of such film under the Copyright Act, 1957 or its assignee thereunder, as that enacted by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature- 'the State Legislature', without being … Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under the Act. Section 20 of the Act states that any offence punishable under the Act shall be a cognizable offence. While Section