Advanced Search Results

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 … is no legislative intent to make registration of a copyright mandatory. Para 8 reads as under:8. A careful analysis of the Scheme and the provisions … 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

Standard Corporation India Ltd Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

design in question, falling under the definition of the term 'design', as defined under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, as per the provisions of the said Act. The definition of the term 'design' was narrower and restricted,

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 … and IA. nos. 6577/2001 are allowed.30. Applications are disposed of accordingly.Suit No. 869/1992 31. List this matter in Court for framing of issues on 03rd

Arun R vs M/S Integray Health Care Private Limited and 3 Others

Court : Chennai

respondent is transferred to this court's jurisdiction.5. It is appropriate to extract Sections 19 and 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, as follows: " 5. Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 reads as follows:19. Cancellation of registration - … where any ground or which the registration of a design may be cancelled under section 19 has Page 8/22been availed of as a ground of defence under sub-section (3) in any suit or other proceeding for relief

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 … content of the websites, it is claimed, is sufficient to constitute infringement. 8. The plaintiffs claim the defendants have admitted to their rights in the … www.scrabble.com and www.mattelscrabble.com. The plaintiffs claim that mark SCRABBLE has become a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 11(6) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It is stated that the plaintiffs have made sales to the tune

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) … Trade Marks issued an Examination Report that no mark conflicting to the plaintiff's mark was reflected. (v) On 8 August 2011, the trade mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and thereafter the trade mark was

Kennedy Vs. the Charity Commission

Court : UK Supreme Court

Subject : Right to Information

on the Charity Commission's performance of its role. It also concerns the relationship between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the FOIA") and the statutory and common law position regarding the disclosure of information outside the scope of … about the statement published in June 2004. Later, however, he sought information designed to elucidate issues, raised by the statement, in relation to the way … ¦.)". 44. The significance of these objectives, functions and duties is not affected by the specific provision in section 8(6), whereby the Commission has a choice in which of two ways it publishes the report of the person

Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 4, 19, 22, 22(3), 53 and 53(2); Companies Act, 1956; Patents and Company Act, 1883 - Sections 47; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 53A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : (2008)3GLR2635; LC2009(1)168

application for cancellation of registration. The grounds for cancellation of registration are mentioned in Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 says that; (1) Any person interested may present a petition for the … this Court is empowered to restrain any such infringement of the plaintiff's right granted under the said registration. 8. Mr. Thakore further submitted that the plaintiff has recently come to know that the defendant has adopted identical

Urooj Ahmed Vs. Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

as defined under Section 2(c) of the Copy Right Act does not come under the purview of the Designs Act, 2000. Section 14 of the Act is a specific provision, which gives the meaning to the word ".copy right".. According … Act, 2000 for the period between 11.05.2001 to 21.06.2012. This has to be construed so in view of Section 8 of the General Clause Act, 1987. We also extract Section 8 of the General Clause Act, 1987 for

J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Customs

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 3, 8C, 9 and 9A to 9C; Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1982; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 12, 15, 46, 58, 68, 72 and 129; Indian Tariff Act, 1934; Finance Act, 2003 - Sections 8B, 8C, 8(8) and 15(1); Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; Finance Act, 2000 - Sections 9AA; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 34; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148; Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Rules 2, 3, 4, 5 to 17, 18, 19 and 20; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 136, 226, 227, 229 and 265

Reported in : 2005(103)ECC152; 2005(186)ELT3(Raj)

be determined and for the assessment and collection of such anti-dumping duty. Sub-section (8) was inserted vide Finance Act, 2000 extending the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the regulations made thereunder relating to non-levy, short levy … whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Authority appointed by the Central Government under Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of