Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: designs act 1911 section 72 · Page 1 of about 198 results (0.061 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jun 30 2005

Devendra Somabhai Naik Vs. Accurate Transheat Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-30-2005

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copy Right Act, 1957 - Sections 15, 15(2) and 72; Designs Act, 1911; Designs (Amendment) Act, 2000

Reported in : 2005(31)PTC172(Guj)

the Act reads as under:'Special provision regarding copyright in designs registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 1911 - (1) Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the Designs … R.S. Garg, J.1. The present is an appeal under Section 72 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 4.6.2004 passed

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 28 2008

Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-28-2008

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13, 14, 15, 15(1), 15(2), 17 and 44; Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(1)(5); Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1); Registration Act - Sections 48; Copyright Act, 1956 - Sections 49; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 479; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4 - Order 43, Rule 1

Reported in : AIR2009Delhi44; 2009BusLR280(Del); LC2009(1)252

involved in the matter, it is necessary that we deal with certain provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, Designs Act, 1911 and Designs Act, 2000.12. Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 which is relevant in the present case … reported in 2006 (32) PTC 157. He referred various paras of the said judgment, particularly Paras 62 and 72 said judgments which are reproduced as under:62. In order for the work of the plaintiff to qualify as

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 13 2006

Microforms Inc Vs. Girdhar and Co. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-13-2006

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13(1), 14, 15, 15(2), 40, 48 and 51; ;Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2 and 2(5); Designs Act, 1911; ;Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2 and 2(1); ;Patents Act; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 479; ;Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 15

Reported in : 128(2006)DLT238; 2006(32)PTC157(Del)

registration of designs in India under the provisions of the said Act or the predecessor Act being the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Designs Act, 1911) The plaintiff having failed to complete the requisite formalities under … Act, the plaintiff in the suit could not claim any copyright therein. 72. The conspectus of the aforesaid shows that what the plaintiff was actually … The plaintiff has claimed that the artistic work constitutes original artistic work as defined within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff also claims that it enjoys copyright protection in India as a

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Jun 04 2007

Dart Industries Inc. and anr. Vs. Techno Plast and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jun-04-2007

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 4, 11, 18, 19, 20, 22, 22(2)(3), 22(3) and 29; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13, 14, 15, 17, 45, 51, 53 and 55; Designs Rules, 2001; Designs Act, 1911; Patent Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2007(35)PTC285(Del)

provides as under:1. Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the Designs Act, 1911(2 of 1911).2. Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 1911 (2 … are two plaintiffs in this case who have filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff No. … 8, 36 244 to 247, 131SLIM LUNCH Pg 1309. 'EXECUTIE 185958/Dt. 5-07-2001 72, 39, 40, 53, 31LUNCH BAG' Pg 134 40, 41, 87'LUNCH BOX 185956/Dt.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 06 1947

United States Vs. United Mine Workers

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-06-1947

Subject : Land Acquisition

; Salvage Process Corp. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corp., 86 F.2d 727 (1936); S. Anargyros v. Anargyros & Co., 191 F. 208 (1911); [ … the essential facts constituting the contempt charged. P. 330 U. S. 296 . (b) Rule 42(b) was not designed to cast doubt upon the propriety of instituting criminal contempt proceedings on pleadings resting only on information and … CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Neither the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, nor § 20 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 738, deprives a federal district court … the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of April 11, 1945. Under that section, either party to the contract was privileged to give ten days' notice

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 25 2011

Music Broadcast Private Limited Vs. Indian Performing Right Society

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-25-2011

Subject : Intellectual Property

reads as follows: "15. Special provision regarding copyright in designs registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 1911. - (1) Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the Designs … sounds are recorded and the technological process of recording the same. If 72 S2401.06 anything, section 2(xx) makes it clear that a sound recording includes … operate and maintain FM radio stations at various places in India. The defendant, a Copyright Society constituted under section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 administers the rights of lyricists and composers and issues licences to perform

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 04 2015

Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-04-2015

Subject : Intellectual Property

treated as a design ?. The label cannot be a design also for the reason that in the Designs Act 1911, section 2(5) defines design as follows: *714 design means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied … S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. These appeals, under Section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenge the order of the Learned Copyright Board (hereinafter the Board ?) dated

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 24 2001

M/S. Veerumal Praveen Kumar Vs. M/S. Needle Industries (India) Ltd. an ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-24-2001

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 28, 29, 29(2), 30, 31, 34, 35, 46, 46(1), 105 and 106; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 1962; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 51A and 53

Reported in : 93(2001)DLT600

Galaxy Footwear New Delhi 200 PTC 1 . The Full Bench while dealing with the provisions under the Designs Act, 1911 observed that any application under section 51A of the Designs Act brings into could the registration of the … judgment of the court of appeal in Imperial Group Ltd. vs. Philip Morris & Co. Ltd. 1982 FSR 72 and drew our attention to certain observation in the judgment which are as under:-'Unlike a copyright, a trademark

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 11 2019

Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors vs.shogun Organics Ltd

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-11-2019

Subject : Land Acquisition

plaintiff) that neither under Section 30 of the 1970, Act nor under Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911, disclosing the process of manufacturing to the Government authority would tantamount to a disclosure to the public at

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 06 1972

Tidewater Oil Co. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-06-1972

Subject : Land Acquisition

Bacon). The legislative history concerning the 1911 amendment, see n 20, supra, indicates that the "notwithstanding" language was designed to "remove any doubt" that the limitation -- initially struck by the 1906 amendment -- on interlocutory appeals … 409 U.S. 151 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Expediting Act, providing that, in a civil antitrust action brought by the United States in a federal district court, an … certified "its order denying defendant's motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code." As required by … See Farbenfabriken Bayer, A.G. v. United States, 1968 CCH Trade Cas. Ĺš 72,570, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 959 (1968); Glaxo Group, Ltd. v. United States,

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial