Advanced Search Results

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 … that under the Designs Act, 1911, only a design not previously registered in India could be registered vide Section 43. Likewise, a petition for cancellation of the registration of the design could be presented on the ground that

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

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

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'). … 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

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

Court : Mumbai

Subject : MRTP

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'). … 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

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 … before'.22. In Gopal Glass Works Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors. 2006 (33) PTC 434, Calcutta High Court opined that in order to destroy the novelty of a design registration, prior disclosure whether

Marico Limited a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2(1); Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 11, 19, 19(2), 19(3), 22, 22(3), 22(4) and 44(1); Designs Act, 1949 - Sections 1, 1(1) 1(2), 2(1) and 44; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 43 - Order 41, Rule 22(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 479

Reported in : AIR2008Bom111; 2008(3)BomCR659; (2008)110BOMLR638; 2008(37)PTC109(Bom)

e) Polar Industries Ltd. v. Usha International Ltd. and Ors. : (2000)2CALLT162(HC) 10. The relevant provisions of the Designs Act-2000, (for short, 'The Act') are as under:2. Definitions:....a) 'article' means any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial, … such matter and as elaborated with reference to the grant of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 readwith Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') as reported in Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox

Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 23 and 53; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 12, 13(4), 43, 45(1), 48, 53, 104 and 108; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 11 and 26(1); Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Copyright Act, 1967; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)

be granted. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per Section 23 of the Designs Act, 2000, provisions of Patent Act pertaining to validity of patents apply to the Designs Act and consequently the provisions … and post grant oppositions had been raised in respect of the patent granted to the applicant/plaintiff and under Section 43 of the Patents Act 1970, it is open to a party who is opposing the patent to prove

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 … in al courts in India, and in all proceedings, Office without further proof for production of the originals: Section 43 (1) defines that All applications and communications to the Controller under this Act may be signed by and

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) … as under:Para Nos.Particulars3 to 5Facts.6Reasons - ordering reference.7Plaintiff's submissions.8Defendant's submissions.9Plaintiff's rejoinder.10 to 16Statutory provisions.17 to 23Legislative History.24 to 43Discussion.44 to 54Case law.55 to 57Further discussion.59Conclusions. FACTS 4. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, we may first

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 … is, in fact, novel and if so, to what extent. In this respect, the learned Judge referred to Section 43 of the Designs Act, 1991 (which is similar (though not identical) to Section 5 of the Designs Act,

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 … Manmohan Singh, J.1. 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