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 … 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 Copyright

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 consequence

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 … 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. 1

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 … S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order shall dispose off IA No. 2352/2008 preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 of the Code

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

Telemecanique and Controls (i) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industri ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 64, 68, 83, 90 and 107; Patents Rules, 1972 - Rules 73 and 74; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(5); Designs (Amendment) Act, 2000 - Sections 2; Indian Law

Reported in : 94(2001)DLT865

which is in substance a mere mechanical device. It is stated that the position remains the same under Designs Act, 2000 in terms of Section 2(d). This plea is being opposed by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for

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 … with the piracy of the design in terms of Section 22 of the Act and in terms of Sub-section 2 (b) of Section 22 the non-applicants/defendants had to be restrained by grant of an injunction.5. It was contended

Marico Limited a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1); Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 11, 19, 19(2), 19(3), 22, 22(3), 22(4) and 44(1); Designs Act, 1949 - Sections 1, 1(1) 1(2), 2(1) and 44; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 43 - Order 41, Rule 22(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 479

Reported in : AIR2008Bom111; 2008(3)BomCR659; (2008)110BOMLR638; 2008(37)PTC109(Bom)

e) Polar Industries Ltd. v. Usha International Ltd. and Ors. : (2000)2CALLT162(HC) 10. The relevant provisions of the Designs Act-2000, (for short, 'The Act') are as under:2. Definitions:....a) 'article' means any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial, … mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in Clause (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in Section

M/s. Selvel Industries and Another Vs. M/s. Om Plast (India)

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

in this Notice of Motion for interim relief in an action in infringement and passing off under the Designs Act, 2000, is whether the Defendant s product infringes the Plaintiffs registered design. 4. I must state straight away that, … mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Trade an Merchandise Marks Ac, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in section

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Gmbh and Co. Kg Vs. Amigo Brushes ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 4, 19, 22(1) and 48(5); Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 479; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2

Reported in : 109(2004)DLT41; 2004(28)PTC1(Del)

the application of such design to toothbrushes. By virtue of said design registration and Section 48(5) of the Designs Act, 2000, the plaintiff has the copyright in the design for an initial period of 5 years from the date … a part of article being the handle of a toothbrush, thereforee, does not qualify as an article under Section 2(a) of the Act on the ground (i) the features of bristles are disclaimed in the design registration certificate