Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: designs act 1911 section 76 · Page 1 of about 181 results (0.032 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.

Jan 23 2014

M.C.Jayasingh Vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-23-2014

Subject : Land Acquisition

it is necessary to have a look at the scheme of the Designs Act, 2000. The Patents and Designs Act, 1911 was a composite enactment that took care of both patents and designs. Immediately after India attained independence, a … F.Hoffmann LA Roche Limited Vs. Cipla Limited [2009 (40) PTC125(Del.)(DB)].. From paragraphs 76 to 83 of the said decision, a Division Bench of the Delhi … the case on hand, I am concerned about a right statutorily conferred upon the plaintiff. This right under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, is conferred upon each of the patentees in terms of Section 50(2).

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

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. … -- 41, 42 & 43BOWL Pg 1143. SOUP SERVER 186134/Dt-24-7-2001 114 70, 76 --WITH LADLE Pg 1194. CRYSTALWAVE 188562/Dt-26-03-2002 4, 69, 37, 62, 79 --DIVIDED

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 23 2014

Lupin Ltd. and Another Vs. Johnson and Johnson and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-23-2014

Subject : Intellectual Property

which a design can be cancelled. It is to be noted that in the earlier Act i.e. the Designs Act, 1911, there was no such provision. However, the Courts, while interpreting the provisions of the Designs Act 1911, held … the registration of a registered trademark and that too only if an application for rectification is filed under Section 57 of the Act. (ii) The entire scheme of the Act and, in particular, the provisions of Sections … case of Hindustan Embroidery Mills v. K. Ravindra and Co. (1967 Vol. LXXVI Bom. L.R. 146)from the book by Kerly on Trademarks. Vimadalal J. referred

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 27 1994

William Grant and Sons Ltd. Vs. Mcdowell and Compay Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-27-1994

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : The Scotch Whisky Act, 1988; Scotch Whisky Order 1990; Indian Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 5, 19(2) and 92; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2, 2(2), 15 and 20; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(5); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 479; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 23, Rule 3

Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)65; 55(1994)DLT80; 1994(30)DRJ105

be 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: . 'design' means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 20 1992

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madgul Udyog

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-20-1992

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 80J and 80J(4); ;Finance Act; ;Constitution of India - Article 366; ;Indian Standards Institutions (Certification Marks) Act, 1952; ;Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Section 2(2)

Reported in : [1994]208ITR541(Cal)

any substance, artificial or natural or partly natural and partly artificial, vide Section 2(2) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911. 27. We have referred to these statutes only to explain that the word 'articles' of manufacture for trade,

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 01 1984

Madura Coats Limited and ors. Vs. Chetan Dev

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-01-1984

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchandise Marks Act - Sections 120; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 36

Reported in : AIR1985P& H43

that effect. In the above said case, the suit was brought under s. 36 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911, which, before its repeal by the Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970) was, in substance, the same … held in Dolphin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Kaptab Pharmaceuticals, AIR 1981 Cal 76, that while restraining a person from making unjustified threats it is not … heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.5. Section 120 of the Act reads:-'120 (1) Where a person by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens person

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 24 2026

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co Kg vs the Controller of Patent ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-24-2026

Subject : Land Acquisition

(3) Suits complaining of groundless threats of infringement proceedings (clause 66).285. Section 29 of the Indian Patents & Designs Act, 1911,enables a patentee to institute a suit in a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit against … pleaded invalidity of IN’301, thereby invoking Section 107(1) of the Patents Act.8. Boehringer, in these circumstances, filed IA 7635/2024 and5 “IN’301” hereinafter 6 “the revocation petition” hereinafter 7 “the Himachal suit” hereinafter LPA 129/2025 Page 3 of

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

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 … bound to refrain from further proceedings until the same time. Rev.Stat. § 766, act of March 3, 1893, c. 226, 27 Stat. 751. The fact

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 13 2023

Assocn. Of Vasanth Appts. Owners Vs. V. Gopinanth And Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-13-2023

Subject : Land Acquisition

be reserved and this space shall be maintained as Community Recreational Open 76 Space to the satisfaction of the authority or transferred to the authority … roads shall be reserved and this space shall be transferred to the authority or to the local body designated by it, free of cost, through a deed. It is obligatory to reserve the 10 percent of the … in AIR1994Supreme Court 2550 [relevant para- 9]. has held that the statutory provisions U/S1921)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act'1911 and U/S2031)(c) of Haryana Municipal Act'1973 enabling the State to seek transfer of land to the extent of … IS THE IMPUGNED RULE/ REGULATION ULTRA VIRES?. ............................ 91 THE IMPACT OF SECTIONS36AND37...................................................... 95 IS THE IMPUGNED RULE/REGULATION BAD FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 25 1915

Amritalal Hazra and ors. Vs. Emperor.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-25-1915

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : 29Ind.Cas.513

1908. The second charge was to the effect that Sasanka, Dines, Sarada, Chandrasekhar, Kalipada, and Khagendra, between March 1911 and 21st November 1913, at 296-1, Upper Circular Road, and other places in British India, had conspired, with … Qninn v. Lenthcm (1901) A.C. 495 at p. 529 : 70 L.J.P.C. 76 : 85 L.T. 289 : 50 W.R. 139 : 65 J.P. 708 … 1230 : 40 B.R. 304 an act, which is not illegal, by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:6. 'Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a … was alleged that the four persons arrested had committed of ences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. On the 26th

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