Advanced Search Results

Lg Electronics India Pvt Ltd Vs. Bharat Bhogilal Patel and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : 2012(5)CTC(IP)1

initio and is in breach of the provisions of Patents Act 1970, the Customs Act 1962 and The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. c) … petition challenging the validity of the impugned patent as on 21st September, 2011 before the appropriate forum, namely, Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai under the Case No.302/2011/PT/MUM under Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970. 13. It is

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mu ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

period from 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2007 amounting to Rs.1,08,66,910/- categorizing the variable royalty/commission received from other race clubs under ‘Intellectual Property Rights Services’ and categorizing the receipts as fixed amount for live telecast under the category of ‘Broadcasting Services’. … the same was categorized as ‘Business Support Services’ and the variable paid by the bookies was categorized as ‘Intellectual Property Right Services’. As regards the royalty amount from the caterers, the same was classified as income from ‘Business

Commissioner of Income Tax vs.sinochem India Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

No.3927/Del/2014. ITA768/2018 Page 1 of 8 3. Question of law raised relates to the claim for depreciation on intellectual property rights acquired and purchased by the assessee from Monsanto India Limited.4. During the period relevant to the assessment … relevant to the assessment year, the assessee had made an addition of Rs.17,88,300/- on account of acquisition of intellectual property rights to the existing assets in the form of intellectual property rights acquired earlier for Rs.34.37/- crores.5. The

Foster'S Australia Limited Vs. Commissioner Concerned

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Subject : MRTP

applicant entered into a contract for the transfer of shares and other intangible assets in the nature of intellectual property to SAB Miller, UK under an agreement styled as "India Sale and Purchase Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as … sale of shares by Dismin and the sale by the applicant of (a) trade marks (b) Foster's Brand Intellectual Property and (c) the grant of exclusive and perpetual licence in relation to Foster's Brewing Intellectual Property, confined to

Foster’s Australia Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurang ...

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Subject : MRTP

applicant entered into a contract for the transfer of shares and other intangible assets in the nature of intellectual property to SAB Miller, UK under an agreement styled as “India Sale and Purchase Agreement” (hereinafter referred to as … sale of shares by Dismin and the sale by the applicant of (a) trade marks (b) Fosters Brand Intellectual Property and (c) the grant of exclusive and perpetual licence in relation to Fosters Brewing Intellectual Property, confined to

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3(d)(b), 2(1)(d), 133, 24(A), 25(1), 2(8)(10), 14, 5, 10; Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Section 20(1); Patents and Designs Act, 1911

of the Constitution of India but is also not in compliance with “TRIPS”. After the formation of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the five writ petitions challenging the five orders of the Assistant Controller were transferred from the … of multilateral negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (The TRIPS) was arrived at and it came into force on January I, 1995. The TRIPS Agreement

Lucasfilm Limited and Others (Appellants) Vs. Ainsworth and Another (R ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Subject : Intellectual Property

was an enormous commercial success. It won an Oscar for best costume design. This appeal is concerned with intellectual property rights in various artefacts made for use in the film. The most important of these was the Imperial … is no further appeal on that point. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the judge that any intellectual property rights in the helmet belong to Lucasfilm, and this Court has refused Mr Ainsworth permission to cross-appeal on

Geep Batteries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gillette India Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : ArbitrationContract

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9; ;Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 23; ;Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 74

Reported in : 2005(2)ARBLR316(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT387; 2005(30)PTC597(Del)

restraining M/s. Gillette India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'respondent/ seller'), from disposing of or alienating or encumbering its Intellectual Property Assets, covenanted to be transferred to the petitioners, in terms of agreement dated 28.12.2002.2. Facts essential for disposal … Gillette Diversified Operation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter GDOPL') at Mysore. The respondent agreed to sell above business, including the Intellectual Property Assets, Customer Contracts, Marketing and Distribution Network and Access to Sourcing arrangements to the petitioner, as per terms

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property

of the Constitution of India but is also not in compliance with “TRIPS”. After the formation of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the five writ petitions challenging the five orders of the Assistant Controller were transferred from the … multilateral negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (The TRIPS) was arrived at and it came into force on January I, 1995. The TRIPS Agreement

Life Technologies Corporation and anr. Vs. Atz Lab Solutions (India) P ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

sketchy application and hence supplemented by an affidavit deposed to by Mr.Peter Y.Lee, the Vice-President and Chief Council, Intellectual Property of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, was that the appellant Life Technologies Corporation was acquired by another company named … to by Mr.Peter Y.Lee, which paragraphs read as under:“1. I am employed as Vice President and Chief Counsel, Intellectual Property with Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (“Thermo Fisher”), having been with the company since 2001. In my capacity of