Advanced Search Results

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 … It is well settled that although under the Copyright Act 1957, there is a provision of registration, under Section 44 of the Act. It is not in doubt that the said procedure is an enabling provision and registration

R (on the Application of Gillan (Fc) and Another (Fc)) (Appellants) Vs ...

Court : House of Lords

Subject : Land Acquisition

gave him a copy of the Stop/Search Form 5090 which recorded that he was stopped and searched under section 44 of the 2000 Act. The search was said to be for "Articles concerned in terrorism". The whole incident … been, statutory exceptions to it. These appeals concern an exception now found in sections 44-47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act"). The appellants challenge the use made of these sections and, in the last resort, the … the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section

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, … be supplied in many cases by applying the criterion given by McCowan L.J., namely: that to qualify under Section 44(1) a spare part has to have an independent life as an article of commerce and not be merely

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 … 39, 40, 53, 31LUNCH BAG' Pg 134 40, 41, 87'LUNCH BOX 185956/Dt. 5-07-2001 42, 43,WITH BAG' Pg 132 44, 88,93, 97.10.'TRAVEL TWIN 185952/Dt. 5-07-2001 BAG' Pg 136'TARVEL TWINS 185957/Dt. 5-07-2001 73, 48 48, 53, 87 --WITH BAG'

Bharat Glass Tube Limited Vs. Gopal Glass Works Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 1, 1(3), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 11(2), 12, 17, 18, 19, 22, 32, 36, 37, 44 and 51; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 51A; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2 and 2(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 479; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2; Registered Designs Act, 1949; Designs Rules, 2001 - Rules 11 and 29

Reported in : AIR2008SC2520; LC2008(2)173; (2008)5MLJ939(SC); 2008(37)PTC1(SC); 2008(8)SCALE4; (2008)10SCC657; 2008AIRSCW3509; 2008AIRSC2520; [2008] 7 SCR 397

up and colour shades and the same were registered and/or were awaiting registration as industrial designs under the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 2000) and the Rules framed thereunder. For production of … to evidence by affidavit and the party may be allowed to cross-examine on the contents of the affidavit. Section 44 deals with reciprocal arrangement with the United Kingdom and other convention countries or group of countries or inter-governmental

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 … any other way. appearing in Section 4(b) of the said Act was not considered. He submitted that even Section 44 of the said Act, which related to reciprocal arrangement with the United Kingdom and other convention countries or

Marico Limited Vs. Raj Oil Mills Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 19, 22(3) and 44(1)

Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR594; 2007(5)BomCR217; (2007)109BOMLR635; 2007(4)MhLj354; LC2007(2)80; 2007(35)PTC330(Bom)

registered design will ordinarily be entitled to an injunction if the design is validly registered. However, under the Designs Act, 2000, it is open to a defendant to raise, inter alia, the plea that the plaintiff's design is not … that the plaintiff's design is not registrable as a ground of defence. In fact, under sub-section (3) of Section 22, the defendant can raise every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under … the criterion given by McCowan L.J., namely: that to qualify under Section 44(1) a spare part has to have an independent life as an article

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) … was raised at an interlocutory stage (J.K. sons v/s. Parksons Games and Sports and anr. 2011 (47) PTC 443 (Bom). The conflict also appears in a series of judgments of this Court on the one hand holding

Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Aarya 24 kt and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

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 … the other hand, the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Masrani Vs Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd (AIR 2009 Delhi 44) was concerned with drawings made in the course of developing garments and accessories by the Plaintiff, which were

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 … its lable in several states. I.A. No.10972/2015 in C.S. (OS) No.1485/2015 Page 44 of 119 69. Ms. Singh submits that from the communication exchanged with