Advanced Search Results

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) … a civil court trying an infringement action should consider the plea of invalidity of registration at any stage. Section 28 confers an exclusive right on the registered proprietor to use the mark and also to prevent others from

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

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 … agents, dealers, distributors, stockists from manufacturing, marketing and using the impugned design registered under No. 186992 in Class 28 on 16.10.2001 in respect of D Shape Tablet and/or any tablet, which is having similar shape and configuration

Konia Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2004)(170)ELT51TriDel

- 1998 (98) E.L.T. 821 (Tribunal)Dhirendran N. Sheth v. CC, Kandla - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 625 (Tribunal)Dev. Youth India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Kandla - … consideration before the Larger Bench is whether Additional Director General of DRI has power to issue notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Reference was necessitated in view of the difference of opinion between different Benches … that for an officer to exercise jurisdiction under Section 28(1) as 'proper officer' he has to be specifically designated as a 'proper officer' to exercise the functions under Section 28(1). Additional Director, DRI has not been notified

Carlsberg Breweries a/S vs.som Distilleries and Breweries Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

of its product, viz. beer, under the brand “TUBORG”, design whereof is registered under the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000. The novelty of the applicant’s registered design resides in the shape and configuration of the bottle.3. The plaintiff … a fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff’s registered bottle design which is liable to be injuncted by virtue of section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. He submits that the copy must be a fraudulent or obvious imitation … an affidavit which was taken on record. The case was adjourned to 28.05.2015. On 28.05.2015, the Court passed the following order: “During the course 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 … agreement for supply of technical information and an agreement for technical services. Both these agreements were executed on 28.11.84. The Government also granted permission to this collaboration agreement. These agreements were to remain in force for a

iag Company Ltd. Vs. Triveni Glass Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 1911 - Section 51A and 53; ;Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 4, 19(1), 22, 22(2)(3), 22(3), 48, 48(2) and 48(4)

Reported in : 2004(3)CHN447,2005(30)PTC140(Cal)

21 (this must be typographical error, as the grounds of defence are contained in Section 22) of the Designs Act, 2000. This Court is in respectful agreement with the said ratio in Faber Castell.38. Two other judgments on which … 2th January, 2001, from the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark, and the certificate is dated 28th August, 2000, and numbered 183322. Admittedly the certificate was granted under the provisions of the Designs Act, 1911

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 … whether the registration is prima facie evidence of validity. The question under reference rather invites the construction of Section 22 of the Design Act, 2000 so as to discern whether it permits a suit for infringement of … case of Microfibers Inc. Vs. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. decided on 28th May, 2009 wherein Mukul Mudgal, J.after considering the statement of objects and

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 would be necessary to refer to the relevant pleadings. In the previous suit instituted CS(OS) 2934/2011 Page 28 of 32 by the plaintiffs (CS(OS) 566 of 2006), the plaintiffs had, inter alia, pleaded as under:-"“14. As

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

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 … design registration for the said CROCS SHAPE TRADEMARK with priority date as 28.05.2004. The same is registered in India under No.197685 which is duly registered