Advanced Search Results

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 … to be restrained from manufacturing and marketing these products as it amounts to : (a) design infringement under Section 20 of the Designs Act; (b) copyright infringement under Section 55 of the Copyright Act; (c) defendants are passing

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 … 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 the application of the respondent (plaintiff in the

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 … Act, 2000 and for passing off?13. Section 62 of the Copyright Act undoubtedly makes a significant departure from Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code in that it provides an additional forum of jurisdiction to the aggrieved party

Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 19, 19(1), 19(2), 22(2), 22(3) and 22(4); ;Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 51A, 51A(1), 51A(2), 53 and 54; ;Patents Act, 1970; ;Patents Rules, 1972; ;Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 20; ;Constitution of India - Article 227

Reported in : JT2010(2)SC148,LC2010(1)101,2010(1)SCALE714,(2010)2SCC535

dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for 'Insecticide Coil' in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent No. 1 herein. The … to the principles relating to the filing of suits where the cause of action arises as contemplated under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. Mr. Dave urged that the High Court appears to have gone wrong

Micolube India Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar Trading as Saurabh Industries ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

suit for infringement of registered design is maintainable against the another registered proprietor of the design under the Designs Act, 2000; (2) Whether there can be availability of remedy of passing off in the absence of express saving or … the provisions of this Act, have copyright in the design during ten years from the date of registration. Section 20 defines A registered design shall have to all intents the like effect as against the Government as it

Pawan Deep Singh Bahl Vs. Princep Supply Agency

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

of any of the acts complained by the plaintiff. And that in accordance with Sec. 20 of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Sec. 47 and Chapter XVII of the Patents Act, 1970, a patent/design is granted subject to … passed off its goods as those of product as that of the plaintiff?. OPP9) Whether the immunity under Section 99 and 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 available to a Govt. Undertaking (RDSO) is passed on to

Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Aarya 24 kt and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

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 … form including three dimensional depiction in any material. It is the Plaintiffs' case that in or about August 2010, the Plaintiffs learnt about infringement of the Plaintiffs' copyright in 22 product drawings by the Defendants. Defendant No.1,

Win Plast Ltd. Vs. Symphony Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Land Acquisition

2 of 2015 by this High Court (Coram: S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.) dated 5.5.2015 in a matter under the Designs Act, 2000 regarding the infringement, etc. on the grounds stated in the Memo of the Appeal. 2. It is contended, … In this very judgment, referring to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, it has been quoted, ".....Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that a suit like the present can be filed wherever the

j.c. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr. Vs.bull Machines Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of drawings were functional items and would not qualify for registration of designs under Section 2(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. It was further claimed that the drawings had been specifically developed to increase the efficiency of finished products. … It is stated that JIL commenced operations in India in 1979 as a joint venture company and in 2002 JBEL acquired the entire paid up share capital of JIL resulting in JIL becoming the wholly owned subsidiary

Crocs Inc Usa vs.action Shoes Pvt Ltd & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

571/2017 Page 6 of 45 10. It was further enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, that the Designs Act 2000, as per its preamble being an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to protection of designs, … prior to codification, of shape/design as a trade mark.14. The counsel for the plaintiff next drew attention to Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 but which merely provides that nothing contained therein shall affect rights … HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA .....