Advanced Search Results

Microfibres Inc. Vs. Girdhar and Co. and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 6, 11, 13, 13(2), 14, 15, 15(1), 15(2), 16, 22, 40, 63, 67; Copyright Act, 1967 - Sections 15; Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 4, 11(2), 12 and 19(1); Design Act of 1911 - Sections 2(5); Patent and Designs Act; Patent Act; Trade Marks Act; U.K. Designs Act, 1949 - Sections 1(3); Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120B, 415, 420 and 479; New Design Rules, 2001; Copyright Law

Reported in : LC2009(2)229; 2009(40)PTC519(Del)

that the learned Single Judge held that the designs in question were capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 and consequently the appellant was not entitled to seek protection under the copyright law as the designs had … in the Interlego case the following position of law was laid down: The definition of = design' in Section 1(3) of the Act of 1949 is hardly a model of Parliamentary draughtsmanship and this is by no means

Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

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

The definition of 'Design' in the Designs Act, 1911 is different from the definition of 'Design' in the Designs Act, 2000. Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 does not include any 'artistic work' as defined in Clause (c) of … Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against the order dated 16th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Wyeth Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 19, 19(1), 22, 22(1), 22(2), 22(3), 26 and 44; Copyright Act, 1957; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65; Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988; Registered Designs Act, 1949 - Sections 5 and 5(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4; Designs Rules, 2001 - Rules 22 and 27

Reported in : 162(2009)DLT298; 2009(41)PTC24(Del)

in favour of the plaintiff is liable to be cancelled under the provisions of Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). According to the defendant, the plaintiff's said design registration was liable … Durrez Ahmed, J1. These applications, one by the plaintiff for an ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the other for vacating the ex parte injunction by the defendant under Order 39

Microforms Inc Vs. Girdhar and Co. and ors.

Court : Delhi

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)

that the artistic works are actually designs relating to textile products and come within the scope of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Designs Act, 2000). The plaintiff has failed to apply for registration of designs … 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 … business of the plaintiff is stated to have commenced in the year 1926 and the plaint states that on the upholstery fabrics are printed, unique

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

filed suit bearing Suit (lodging) No.1675 of 2012 in this Court seeking an injunction invoking provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against appellant M/s Videocon Industries Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Videocon'). … the entire course of hearing. 8. Learned counsel Mr.Tulzapurkar and Mr.Soni appearing for Videocon Industries contended: (a) Under section 22 (3) of the Designs Act, 2000 the defendant in a suit for injunction filed on the ground … N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

filed suit bearing Suit (lodging) No.1675 of 2012 in this Court seeking an injunction invoking provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against appellant M/s Videocon Industries Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Videocon'). … the entire course of hearing. 8. Learned counsel Mr.Tulzapurkar and Mr.Soni appearing for Videocon Industries contended: (a) Under section 22 (3) of the Designs Act, 2000 the defendant in a suit for injunction filed on the ground … N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. The trial Court by the impugned order has restrained the appellant-defendant 'Videocon

Srmb Udyog Limited Through Its Marketing Manager Sri Sunil Kumar Vs. A ...

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 19 and 22; Designs Act, 1911; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : AIR2008Jhar32; 2007(2)BLJR2208; [2007(3)JCR374(Jhr)]

gone into the grounds taken by the defendant No. 1 in its petition under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') filed before the Controller and also the bona fides of defendant No. 1, before

Metal Impacts Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Representative Senior Sale ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 7 Rule 1, Order 7 Rule 2; Designs Act 2000 - Sections 22, 19(1), 2, 4; Companies Act, 1956; Designs Act, 1999

Reported in : 2012(2)KCCR853; 2012(3)CTC(IP)15

(Prayer: This plaint filed under order VII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC r/w Section 22 of Designs Act 2000 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.15349 of 2006 and transferred

Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. Vs. Dip Crafts Industries

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 22; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2003(26)PTC163(Del)

the plaintiffs as also passing off and indulging in activities within the meaning of Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.4. Summons and notices were issued in the suit whereupon, the defendant has entered appearance and filed a written … Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC praying for a temporary injunction against the defendant, restraining the said defendant, its servants, agents,

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Gmbh and Co. Kg and anr. Vs. Anch ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 4, 19 and 19(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4

Reported in : 2004(29)PTC72(Del)

the plaintiff suffers or not from any of the vices enumerated in Sections 4 and 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. It is also to be seen as to whether the aforesaid design is a 'new design' and the … R.C. Chopra, J.1. In is No. 10928/2002, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, … the defendant has failed to even prima facie establish that it is hit by the defenses available under Sections 4 and 19 of the Act.10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also argued that in case there