Advanced Search Results

Arunachalam Muthu Vs. Nafan Bv and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench”. (ii) Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: “96. Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another.- On the application of any of … notice, the Chairman may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench.” (iii) Section 64 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995. “64. Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another.-

Lupin Ltd. and Another Vs. Johnson and Johnson and Another

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

and the Designs Act there is no provision similar to the provision contained in Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This is one more instance to show that the legislature did not intend that the question of validity … in any suit for infringement of a patent, every ground on which the patent may be revoked under Section 64 shall be available as a ground of defense. Section 64 provides for the grounds on which a patent

Vizag Profiles Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (Rinl), Popularl ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 17(2), 20(1), 21(1), 23(2), 33, 64, 66 and 73; Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940; Trade Marks Rules - Rules 47(1), 62(1), 131(1) and 138(1)

Reported in : 2009(5)ALT58

Notice of Opposition on 27-5-2005 under Sections 21(1), 64, 66, 73 and Rules 47(1), 131(1) and 138(1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff became aware of the attempt to use the mark 'VIZAG' and symbol 'I' by the first … Registering authorities, they have published an advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1327 Supplement II January under Section 20(1) proviso as an advertisement before acceptance. On coming to know about the advertisement, the plaintiff filed Notice

Rajeshwar Prasad @ Pappuji Singh Chand Sigh and Another Vs. Prem Mehan ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property

name KAVERI for his products since the year 2007. The plaintiff got his trade mark registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff's mark and label of Kaveri Mehandi Cone is registered vide registered no.1636298 dated 31st December, 2007. … I.P.C. and sections 103 and 104 of Trade Marks Act, and sections 64, 65 of the Copyright Act on 21st April, 2012. The police station … public. The plaintiff therefore filed FIR vide Cr.No.54 of 2012 with the Khajekala Police Station, Patna City under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 473, 474, 482, 483, 485, 487 of I.P.C. and sections 103 and 104 of

B. Mohamed Yousuff Vs. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh, Rep. by Its Power o ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 11, 12, 12(2), 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(3), 30(2), 38, 42, 45, 45(1), 46, 47, 47(1), 50, 56, 57, 57(1), 57(2), 83, 84, 92, 93, 107, 108(3), 109(2), 109(4), 109(5), 124, 124(1), 124(2) to 124(5) and 125; Administrative Tribunals Act - Sections 28; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 108(2), 108(3), 109(4), 109(5), 111 and 111(1)(B); Trade Marks Rules, 2002 - Rules 4, 6, 7, 63(1), 64(3) and 66; Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003 - Rule 16; Constitution of India - Articles 32, 226, 227, 323A and 323B; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 100

Reported in : LC2007(1)107

respectively. 3. Since the parties hereto have wielded against one another, almost all the weapons available under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such as (i) opposition for registration, (ii) Assignment (iii) appeals and review petitions before the Appellate Board, (iv) … with the full name and address of their firm in prominent feature on the label, sticker etc., under Section 12 of the Act without any territorial restriction. But in respect of the Kangayam party, the Assistant Registrar … 1982 containing the Pincode of location of its customer at Tiruppur as 641 605. The bills so produced were of the year 1980 to 1982

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Indian Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(4), 27, 28, 29(2), 29(3), 51, 54, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 69(3), 78, 84, 84(1) to 84(5), 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 116, 116(1), 116(2), 117A, 117A(2), 117G and 158; Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 116; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 47; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 23, 25 and 61

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368

under:Section 116(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 shall be the Appellate Board for the purposes of this Act and the said Appellate Board shall exercise … 62, that amended Section 117G is consequential to the enforcement of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Board under Section 64 which results to revocation of patent. Vide Clause 47 of Notes on Clauses attached to the Statement of

Dr. Aloys Wobben Vs. Yogesh Mehra and ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

from the above, Mr Sorabjee sought to bring to our notice the provisions of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short the TM Act) to demonstrate, by contradistinction, that where the legislature wishes to confer a power … detriment. 2.6 The grappling for rights resulted in EIL, instituting proceedings in the IPAB, in January 2009, under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Patents Act), to seek revocation of certain patents

Spice Mobiles Limited Vs. Somasundaram Ramkumar and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

The Counsel for the petitioner said that in total contrast to the Patent Law, section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of validity and therefore, the two contrasting positions … ORDER (No.186/2009) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member: 1. This is an application for revocation of patent No.214388 under section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to the Act). In the said revocation application the petitioner filed

The Coca-cola Company and anr. Vs. K.M. Salim

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

are valid and subsisting as of date. By virtue thereof and by virtue of the provisions of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the plaintiff No.1 and its licensees have the exclusive right to use … alia in respect of the goods and services for which the aforesaid trade marks are registered. Additionally, under Section 31 of the Act, the original registration is a prima facie evidence as to its validity. Copies of … constitute a cognizable criminal offence under the provisions of Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, punishable with imprisonment up to three years

M/S. Shreedhar Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vikas Tyagi and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Education

in that particular case. But, whatever we decide, it would apply, not only to the proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 but also to proceedings under the Patent Act, 1970 and under Geographical Indications Act, or under any other … entitled to file a rectification application under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act or Revocation application under Section 64 of the Act Patents Act, 1970. The law relating to ‘Stay” and “Injunction” will not allow such a