Advanced Search Results

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 … Copyright Act is, thereforee, not permissible under the law and the case of alleged infringement of copyright under Section 45 of the Act is not maintainable. It is additionally argued that the copyright claimed by the plaintiffs ceased

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

Court : House of Lords

Subject : Land Acquisition

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 … wide. 8. The third stage involves the exercise of the stop and search power, which is governed by section 45. This provides: "(1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)— (a) may be exercised … 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

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 … two goods, it comes within the mischief of passing off.” (emphasis supplied) 45. Mr. Chandra submits that a label-which is registered as a trade mark,

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

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 … hand, have said, 'that gives me what I wish'? British Thompson Houston Co. v. Metropolitan Cickers Electrical Co. 45 R.P.C. at p.23, Otto v. Linford, (1882) 46 L.T.N.S.35; Flour Oxidising Co. v. Car & Co. 25 R.P.C.

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

Microforms Inc Vs. Girdhar and Co. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 13(1), 14, 15, 15(2), 40, 48 and 51; ;Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2 and 2(5); Designs Act, 1911; ;Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 2 and 2(1); ;Patents Act; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 479; ;Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 15

Reported in : 128(2006)DLT238; 2006(32)PTC157(Del)

that the artistic works are actually designs relating to textile products and come within the scope of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Designs Act, 2000). The plaintiff has failed to apply for registration of designs … S.K.Nayar : AIR1988Ker39 has taken the same view that Section 44 and 45 of the Copyright Act are only enabling provisions and do not effect … The plaintiff has claimed that the artistic work constitutes original artistic work as defined within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff also claims that it enjoys copyright protection in India as a

Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

******* ******** ********* 15. Special provision regarding copyright in designs registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000) - (1) Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered … 2 (a) excluded an artistic work (and a copyright in it) in a label. Counsel also relied on Section 45 of the Copyright Act and proviso to the said section to say that an artistic work which can

Kiran Shoes Manufacturers Vs. Registrar of Copyrights and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

trim” is an artistic work with “GOLD STAR” inscribed thereupon and cannot be registered/registerable as a „design‟under the Designs Act, 2000. Our attention was drawn to Section 2 (d) of the Designs Act which defines “design”. Our attention was … to Section 2 (d) of the Designs Act which defines “design”. Our attention was also drawn to the Section 45 of the Act particularly proviso thereof to contend that there was no existing mark that was identical to

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