Advanced Search Results

Messrs Gulfam Exporters and Another Vs. Sayed Hamid and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyrights Act, 1957 - Sections 63; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 78 and 79; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 2(1), 200, 202 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1960 - Sections 420 and 483

Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR619; 2000(3)MhLj183

the aforesaid offences. Secondly he contended that since there is no registration either under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 or the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 the prosecution for the offences under the said Acts i.e. … Mr. Desai Certified copy is expedited.15. Petition allowed. Intellectual Property Rights - complaint - Section 63 of Copyrights Act, 1957, Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and

Madankumar Dharamchand JaIn and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCriminal

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1), 78 and 79; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 63; Indian Penal Code(IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 120, 120B, 465, 471, 472 to 475, 482, 483 and 486

Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR416

under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. These convictions were recorded by the learned Magistrate on 26th March, 1979. The first petitioner was sentenced to

Rajesh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : CriminalMedia and Communication

Reported in : 1996(3)WLC582; 1996(2)WLN92

the owner of such film so as to attract penal provisions of Section 63 & 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957. On such material before , the learned Magistrate had primafacie reasons to believe that the offence punishable under

Subhashree Das @ Milli. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 124A, 34; Indian Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 63; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10, 13, 18, 20

of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. According to the complainant (Balabhadra

Jayanthilal M. Munoth and ors. Vs. Mr. M. Durairajan

Court : Chennai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 13, 63 and 69; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 406 and 417; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 200

Reported in : [2006]132CompCas797(Mad); 2006(33)PTC330(Mad)

launched as against them for the offences under Sections 406 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. 2. The averment in brief as found in the private complaint filed by … Act, 1957. Right to artistic work also come under the copy right as per Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 2(c) defines artistic work to mean a drawing also (including a diagram, map, chart or plan). The allegation

Brundaban Sahu Vs. B. Rajendra Subudhi

Court : Orissa

Subject : Media and CommunicationIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 16, 48, 51 and 63; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 78 and 79

Reported in : AIR1986Ori210

Phulbani in I.C.C. No. 48 of 84 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The opposite party filed

Vidya Prakashan Mandir Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCriminal

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Course Books Act, 1978 - Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2 and 63

Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2473; 2003CriLJ202; (2002)3UPLBEC2641

Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Course Books Act. 1978 and Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957. 2. According to the allegations of the first information report the complainant had received information from the District

Premwati Bansal Vs. M/S. Shri Ganpati International

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 78, 79, 105 and 106; Indian Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 45(1), 57, 63 and 64

Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)687; 82(1999)DLT398

under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as under Sections 63 and 64 of the Indian copyright Act, 1957 was filed against unknown persons and that the Plaintiff effected … 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as under Section 51 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. The case disclosed in the plaint is that

Vishvajeet Sharma and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 15, 15(2) and 63; Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2 and 2(1); Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 27, 103 and 104; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 482; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC484(Del)

and FIR No. 52 of 2006 dated 12th January 2006 registered at Police Station (PS) Saraswati Vihar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and all proceedings consequent thereto.2. The background to the filing of this petition is … also denied that the product of Respondent No. 2 was an original work of art protected under the Copyright Act 1957.5. It appears that even before the second notice dated 14th December 2005 was sent by the lawyers of

Sheo Ratan Upadhya Vs. Gopal Chandra Nepali and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Media and CommunicationIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 63

Reported in : AIR1965All274; 1965CriLJ672

complainant appellant alleged that the respondents were liable to be punished for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.3. The learned City Magistrate of Varanasi, who tried the case, came to the conclusion that the original work