Advanced Search Results

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designs are concerned, the protection is provided under the Designs Act, 2000, which came into force from May, 2001 and repealed the earlier Designs Act, 1911.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 … confusingly similar mark for the online version of the plaintiffs' game, it is claimed amounts to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off. The intent to appropriate the goodwill of the plaintiffs'

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 … design is of recent date, the design having been published earlier the ground of defense as mentioned in Section 29 can be taken by the defendants pursuant to sub section (3) of Section 22 of the Design Act,

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) … beyond the registration at the interlocutory stage. The learned Judge observed as under : “8. In my view, Section 29 of the Act providing for infringement of the registered trademark does not contemplate infringement by another registered proprietor.

G.Raghu Babu vs Muralikrishnan

Court : Chennai

his novel and innovative design vide application No. 297504 in class 12-05 dated 13/09/2017 under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000. The said design registration is valid till 2.9. Hence, it is clear that the Appellant is the proprietor … obtained registration thereof for his novel and innovative design vide application No. 297504 in class 12-05 dated 13/09/2017 under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000. … Vinoth Brick Works, Z-275, 5th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 047. ... RespondentsAppeal Suit is filed under Section 96 r/w. Order XLI, Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the judgment

Sabmiller India Limited (Formerly Skol Breweries Ltd.) Vs. Som Distill ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Education

its bottles to be used for selling beer and applied for registration of the said design under the Designs Act, 2000, in Class 09-01 which design was registered on 15th January 2010 under No. 223479. In the meantime, on … by the Defendant amounted to infringing of the Plaintiff's registered trade mark in view of the provisions of Section 29 (2) (c ) of the Act, and in view of the identity of the two marks and identity

Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

pertain to the interpretation to be given to the words œany person used in Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (œthe Act?). 7. In support of its contention that a suit for infringement is maintainable against the Defendant … and Act of 1999) by use of the expression œa person who, not being a registered proprietor¦.? in Section 29 has excluded the registered proprietor from the definition of infringement. Had the Legislature intended to exclude from within

Modern Dies Vs. Symphony Comforts Systems Ltd. and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : SICA

Acts : Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 15 to 22, 25 and 31; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151; Design Act, 1911 - Sections 51A; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 25; Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 17; State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Sections 29

Reported in : I(2006)BC178; (2006)142PLR15

petition for cancellation of design registration No. 172063 dated 26,2.1997 under the provisions of Section 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911. It is pleaded that the petitioner's sister concern Modern Fans having same partners is dealing in the … from the State Financial Corporation of Maharashtra. This corporation was governed by the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Section 29 of the said Act provided that if any industrial concern which is under a liability to the Financial

Green Valley Biscuit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madhabi Biscuit Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 1911; Designs Act, 2000; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 27 and 29

trade mark to protect the design of the biscuits under the Designs Act, 1911 (now substituted by the Designs Act, 2000) and the same has been registered accordingly. Since February 2001 the appellant noticed that the respondent company has … for want of registration, the suit is barred under Sections 27 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.6. In case of an infringement of … the appellant has no exclusive and monopolistic right in the word 'Cocktail' and 'Society' which are descriptive under Section 9 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. According to them, there being no restriction under the

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, … to appreciate that the High Court of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit under sec. 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 read with sec. 20 of the Civil procedure Code, 1908 as it … reasonable apprehension. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Thakore emphasised the observations in para 29 which has been quoted and emphasised, ".....Furthermore, when an injunction is sought,

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 … under the mark TUBORG, with the plaintiff.36. Mr. Chandra has also drawn the attention of the Court to Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, which sets out the circumstances in which the registered trademark is infringed by a