Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: competition amendment act 2007 section 15 amendment of section 21 Page 8 of about 140,241 results (0.737 seconds)

Bacardi Corp. Vs. Domenech

Court : US Supreme Court

..... of the treasurer. . . . [ footnote 5 ]" it is these sections which petitioner attacks. page 311 u. s. 156 section 7 of the act of 1937 amended the proviso of section 44 so as to make its limitation applicable, in regard to trademarks only, to such "as shall have been used exclusively in the ..... which prevail in the several american republics," and resolved to negotiate the convention "for the protection of trademarks, tradenames, and for the repression of unfair competition and false indications of geographical origin." by chapter i, entitled "equality of citizens and aliens as to trade mark and commercial protection," the respective contracting ..... for each country" and properly recorded. (art. 11). chapter iii provides for the "protection of commercial names," chapter iv for the "repression of unfair competition," and chapter v for the "repression of false indications of geographical origin or source." the remaining chapters relate to remedies and contain general provisions. among the .....

United States Vs. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... competition." mr. justice frankfurter, concurring. the twenty-first amendment made a fundamental change, as to control of the liquor traffic, in the constitutional relations between the ..... between or among retailers as to sale or resale prices." the colorado unfair practices act, 1941 col.session laws, ch. 227, amending and reenacting 1937 col.session laws, ch. 261, makes it unlawful to sell goods below cost to injure or destroy competition, and states that the express purpose of the act is "to safeguard the public against . . . monopolies and to foster and encourage .....

Park N' Fly Inc. Vs. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... with the patent office to establish the incontestable status of the mark. [ footnote 2 ] as required by 15 of the trademark act of 1946 (lanham act), 60 stat. 433, as amended, 15 u.s.c. 1065, the affidavit stated that the mark had been registered and in continuous use for five consecutive years, ..... . no. 1333, at 5. consequently, rights to trademarks were uncertain and subject to variation in different parts of the country. because trademarks desirably promote competition and the maintenance of product quality, congress determined that "a sound public policy requires that trademarks should receive nationally the greatest protection that can be given them ..... v. johann haviland china corp., 269 f.supp. 928, 955 (sdny 1967). several commentators have also written on the subject. 2 j. mccarthy, trademarks and unfair competition 761 (1984). one early article noted: "the fact that section 33(b) limits the defenses against an incontestable mark to seven specific issues is possibly not conclusive. .....

Jiwankumar Sitaram Sondhi Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtr ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(4)BomCR589; (2001)3BOMLR190; [2002]127STC234(Bom)

..... is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the issue which arises in this case. learned counsel submits that the entire purpose of enacting the amending act is to stall any competition from other stales in the matter of sale of lottery tickets and, therefore, a backdoor method is adopted to stop sale of such tickets of ..... 54, list ii of the constitution. he further contended that for the aforestated reasons, the impugned amending act also violated article 286(1) and article 301 of the constitution. he submitted that the purposeof enacting the amending act was to avoid legitimate competition of other state lotteries. lastly, he urged that by imposing sales tax at a fixed rate per ..... a backdoor method, a ban on sale of other stale lottery tickets is sought to be brought in. therefore, the amending act is passed to avoid competition. that, the impugned act is in the nature of a restrain on inter-state trade and commerce within union of india and, therefore, it is also violative of article .....

Shri Saurabh Tripathy vs.competition Commission of India & Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... enterprises concerned to abide by such other orders as the commission may pass and comply with the directions, including payment of costs, if any; (f) [omitted by competition (amendment) act, 2007]. (g) pass such other [order or issue such directions]. as it may deem fit. provided that while passing orders under this section, if the commission comes to ..... the continuance of such agreement or ten percent. of its turnover for each year of the continuance of such agreement, whichever is higher.]. (c) [omitted by competition (amendment) act, 2007]. (d) direct that the agreements shall stand modified to the extent and in the manner as may be specified in the order by the commission; (e) ..... india (hereafter cci ) in case no.63/2014, whereby cci had concluded that a case of contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the competition act, 2002 (hereafter the act ) was established against respondent no.2 (great eastern energy corporation ltd. hereafter w.p.(c) 2079/2018 page 1 of 45 geecl ). the .....

Bond Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... with others is not a violation of the tenth amendment ). the court then added the sentence upon which the court of appeals relied in the instant case, the sentence that has been the ..... read to refer to the absence of a cause of action for injury caused by economic competition. to the extent the statement might instead be read to suggest a private party does not have standing to raise a tenth amendment issue, it is inconsistent with this court s later precedents and should be deemed neither ..... acts of the authority cannot be upheld without permitting federal regulation of purely local matters reserved to the states or the people by the tenth amendment. 306 u. s., at 143. the court rejected the argument, however, concluding the tenth amendment did not give one business a right to keep another from compet- ing. id. , at 144. ( the sale of government property in competition .....

Girish Chandra Gupta and ors. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... to monopolistic trade practices or restrictive trade practices pending before the mrtp commission shall, on the commencement of the competition (amendment) ordinance, 2009, stand transferred to the competition appellate tribunal constituted under the competition act, 2002 and shall be adjudicated by the appellate tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the mrtp act as if ..... 2005 (info electronics system ltd. v. sutran corporation) held, relying on a judgment of this court in saurabh prakash v. dlf universal ltd. [(2007) 1 scc 228], that in the absence of separate proceedings alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation under section 12b of ..... breach of contract. in the aforesaid decision in saurabh prakash v. dlf universal ltd. (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the competition appellate tribunal in the impugned orders, this court did not at all consider the question whether an application under section 12b of the mrtp act was .....

Vicnivaas Agency Vs. Mmtc Limited

Court : Delhi

..... trade practice has also been alleged), before the monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission shall, [on the commencement of the competition (amendment) act, 2009]., stand transferred to the appellate tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the appellate tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed ..... are final orders. therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to file an appeal in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the competition act. it is settled legal proposition that the high court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the constitution will not be ..... the alleged monopolistic restrictive or unfair trade practices. relying upon the judgement of the supreme court in saurabh prakash vs. dlf universal ltd. (2007) 1 scc228the competition appellate tribunal, delhi held that in the absence of separate proceedings alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation under section .....

Cross Land Marketing (2000) Pte. Ltd. Vs. the Food Corporation of Indi ...

Court : Delhi

..... trade practice has also been alleged), before the monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission shall, [on the commencement of the competition (amendment) act, 2009]., stand transferred to the appellate tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the appellate tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed ..... are final orders. therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to file an appeal in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the competition act. it is settled legal proposition that the high court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the constitution will not be ..... the alleged monopolistic restrictive or unfair trade practices. relying upon the judgement of the supreme court in saurabh prakash vs. dlf universal ltd. (2007) 1 scc228the competition appellate tribunal, delhi held that in the absence of separate proceedings alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation under section .....

Apoorva Agencies Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.

Court : Delhi

..... trade practice has also been alleged), before the monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission shall, [on the commencement of the competition (amendment) act, 2009]., stand transferred to the appellate tribunal and shall be adjudicated by the appellate tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed ..... are final orders. therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to file an appeal in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the competition act. it is settled legal proposition that the high court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the constitution will not be ..... the alleged monopolistic restrictive or unfair trade practices. relying upon the judgement of the supreme court in saurabh prakash vs. dlf universal ltd. (2007) 1 scc228the competition appellate tribunal, delhi held that in the absence of separate proceedings alleging unfair, monopolistic or restrictive trade practice, an application for compensation under section .....