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

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 … 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 … be the effect of Sub-section 4 of Section 10 read with Section 38 of the Designs Act with regard to evidential value of such certificate

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 … defined in the said Act. The Copyright Act, 1957 may throw some light. Referring to Section 2(ff) and Section 3 thereof. Mr Lall submitted that publication would have the connotation of making available to the public or communicating

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 … (for playing) are not protectable under the Patents Act, 1970; they are not deemed inventions under the Act. Section 3 of the Patents Act, provides as follows:3. WHAT ARE NOT INVENTIONS. The following are not inventions within the

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 … Water Beds and Squared Water Seats/Water Cushion and, consequently directing the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiffs. 3. During pendency of the suit, the appellants also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants /

Faber-castell Aktiengesellschaf(Sic), a Company Organised Under the La ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2, 2(5), 4, 4(2), 11(1), 43, 51A and 51A(1); Designs (Amendment) Act, 2000 - Sections 19, 19(1), 21 22(3), 48 and 48(4); Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1); ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 479; General Clauses Act, 1897; Arbitration Act, 1996 - Sections 85; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 64

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR139; 2003(6)BomCR65; 2003(4)MhLj264; 2003(27)PTC538(Bom); [2003]45SCL362(Bom)

is that the design at exh. 'C' to the plaint is not a design as defined under the Designs Act, 2000. According to the learned counsel for the defendants, 'design' has been defined by Section 2(d) to mean only … plug is that part of the highlighter used for filing the fluorescent ink. The registered design is dated 31.7.1997 and certified on 12.1.1998.3. The unique features of the plaintiffs produces are:(i) A dark green body;(ii) A unique

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 … 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, 2000, thereforee, no injunction can be granted as there is a

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 … Court. The decision in Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. : (1994) 1 SCC 34 was also referred to in this regard.15. Mr. Lall submitted that full disclosures had not been made regarding

iag Co. Ltd. Vs. Triveni Glass Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 22, 22(2), 22(3), 48 and 48(2) to 48(5); ;Designs Act, 1911 - Section 53; ;Designs Rules, 1933; ;Designs Rules, 2001; ;General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6

Reported in : (2004)3CALLT71(HC),2004(29)PTC665(Cal),[2004]51SCL498(Cal)

was instituted by the plaintiff on August 1st, 2003; it was not pending at the commencement of the Designs Act, 2000. Section 48(4) of the Designs Act, 2000 saved only the pending proceeding. So the case of the plaintiff will … C.S. No. 213 of 2003 has taken out this interlocutory application (G.A. No. 2709 of 2003) dated July 31st, 2003. The prayers in the suit are as follows :--'(a) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

the entire course of hearing. 8. Learned counsel Mr.Tulzapurkar and Mr.Soni appearing for Videocon Industries contended: (a) Under section 22 (3) of the Designs Act, 2000 the defendant in a suit for injunction filed on the ground … filed suit bearing Suit (lodging) No.1675 of 2012 in this Court seeking an injunction invoking provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against appellant M/s Videocon Industries Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Videocon').

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

the entire course of hearing. 8. Learned counsel Mr.Tulzapurkar and Mr.Soni appearing for Videocon Industries contended: (a) Under section 22 (3) of the Designs Act, 2000 the defendant in a suit for injunction filed on the ground … filed suit bearing Suit (lodging) No.1675 of 2012 in this Court seeking an injunction invoking provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against appellant M/s Videocon Industries Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred as 'Videocon').