Advanced Search Results

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

the identical or deceptively similar designs by defendants amounts to an act of piracy within the meaning of Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 and the defendants cannot have any justification to adopt the plaintiffs' distinctive designs … 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

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 … the context of the meaning of the words .obvious. and .fraudulent imitation.. Similar words have been used in Section 22 (1)(a) of the said Act. The reference to the decision in Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd (supra) was as

Metco Polymers Pvt. Limited and Vs. Madhu Inflatables Pvt. Limited and

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 19, 22, 22(2) and 22(3); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 115

Reported in : (2005)4MLJ294

C.S.No.638 of 2003. 2. The said suit was filed by the present appellants under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing upon

Tapria Tools Limited Vs. Eastman Cast and Forge Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

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

Reported in : 2004(28)PTC528(Bom)

plaintiffs copyright in the registered designs and are acts of piracy within the meaning of section 22 of Designs Act, 2000. It is in these circumstances, according to Mr. Shah they are entitled to the reliefs in the motion.10.

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

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

Astral Polytechnik Limited Represented by Its Chief Finance Officer Vs ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Indian Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 19, 19(1), 19(2), 22, 22(1), 22(2), 22(3) and 22(4)

Reported in : ILR2008KAR2533; 2009(3)KarLJ623; 2008(3)KCCR1957; 2008(5)AIRKarR198; AIR2008NOC2538

defendant in OS 27080/2007 challenging the order passed on an interlocutory application under Section 22(4) of the Indian Designs Act, 2000 wherein the trial court has refused to transfer the suit to the High Court.2. For the purpose of

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, … grounds are available to him in these very proceedings before me in view of the expressed wording of Section 22(3). This is undoubtedly a correct reading of the statutory provisions. 28. The defences may be summarised thus: (a)

Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 4, 19, 22, 22(3), 53 and 53(2); Companies Act, 1956; Patents and Company Act, 1883 - Sections 47; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 53A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : (2008)3GLR2635; LC2009(1)168

The plaintiff, therefore, moved an application Ex.27 before City Civil Court, Ahmedabad stating therein that in view of Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 the suit is required to be transferred to this Court. The City Civil … application for cancellation of registration. The grounds for cancellation of registration are mentioned in Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 says that; (1) Any person interested may present a petition for the

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