Advanced Search Results

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)

in the trade mark and passing off.b) Copyright Act, 1957 for infringement of registered and unregistered copyright andc) Designs Act, 2000 for infringement of registered design5. The plaintiff has made allegations against the defendant which are incorporated in paragraphs … one under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the second as one under Section 21 of the Code, de hors their garb both applications are under Order VII Rule 10 of the

Rotela Auto Components (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jaspal Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 4, 9, 10(4), 19, 22, 22(2), 22(3) and 38; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 51A and 53; Patents Act - Sections 64 and 107

Reported in : 95(2002)DLT830

that plaintiffs are manufacturing unique and distinctive locks since the period of its registration under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000. Some of the salient features of the plaintiffs Top Open Locks are as under:-a) Top View: (i) It … facie evidence in favor of confirming the injunction and that would be the effect of Sub-section 4 of Section 10 read with Section 38 of the Designs Act with regard to evidential value of such certificate of registration.

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

Court : Delhi

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)

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. 1 is a company incorporated under … similar kind of products produced by many other plastic manufacturers and these products are sold in more than 100 countries around the world. In India alone, sales figures which were Rs. 18.83 crores in the year 1998-99

Bharat Glass Tube Limited Vs. Gopal Glass Works Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 1, 1(3), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 11(2), 12, 17, 18, 19, 22, 32, 36, 37, 44 and 51; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 51A; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2 and 2(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 479; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2; Registered Designs Act, 1949; Designs Rules, 2001 - Rules 11 and 29

Reported in : AIR2008SC2520; LC2008(2)173; (2008)5MLJ939(SC); 2008(37)PTC1(SC); 2008(8)SCALE4; (2008)10SCC657; 2008AIRSCW3509; 2008AIRSC2520; [2008] 7 SCR 397

up and colour shades and the same were registered and/or were awaiting registration as industrial designs under the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 2000) and the Rules framed thereunder. For production of … by anyone else. On or about 29.10.2002 the respondent applied to the Controller of Patents and Designs under Section 51 of the Act of 2000 for registration of the said design in Class 25-01. The said design

Arun R vs M/S Integray Health Care Private Limited and 3 Others

Court : Chennai

respondent is transferred to this court's jurisdiction.5. It is appropriate to extract Sections 19 and 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, as follows: " 5. Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 reads as follows:19. Cancellation of registration - … has sent a letter to the fourth respondent on 27.03.2025 stating the pendency of the proceedings before Page 10/22this court and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred case i.e. Maya Appliances

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

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

Trademarks Act with the provisions of the Designs Act and the Patents Act. It is submitted that the Designs Act, 2000 [Section 22(4) read with Section 19] and the Patents Act [Section 10 read with Section 64] (unlike Trademarks Act)

M/S. Whirpool of India Ltd. Vs. M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

in view of provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of section 2 read with section 11 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” for short), the plaintiff has the exclusive right to apply its … on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kemp and Company v. Prima Plastics Ltd., (1999) 101 (1) Bom.L.R. 65; in the case of Gorbatschow Wodka KG. v. John Distilleries Limited (Notice of Motion No.3463/2010

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 … granted by the Designs Office is granted for a limited period of 10 years which is renewable by a further period of 5 years. E. … Dart Industries Inc. and FAO (OS) No. 447/2008 filed by Mattel Inc., on the question of interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act read with Section 2(d) of the Designs Act and Section 15(2) of the

Mattel, Inc. and ors. Vs. Mr. Jayant Agarwalla and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 11(6), 27, 29 and 36; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 14, 15 and 15(2); Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 6, 15(2) and 47(2); Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3; Designs Act, 1911; Lanham Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Designs Rules, 2001 - Rule 10

Reported in : 153(2008)DLT548; LC2008(3)298; 2008(38)PTC416(Del)

of different nature of rights. Insofar as the industrial designs are concerned, the protection is provided under the Designs Act, 2000, which came into force from May, 2001 and repealed the earlier Designs Act, 1911. An important and relevant … www.scrabble.com and www.mattelscrabble.com. The plaintiffs claim that mark SCRABBLE has become a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 11(6) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It is stated that the plaintiffs have made sales to the tune … points are scored by forming such words. It is averred that over 100 million sets of the game have been sold in approximately 29 different

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 … complete the discussion on public access to a registered design, it would be necessary to point out that Section 10 requires that a register of designs be kept at the Patent Office. Section 17 of the said Act