Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(34)PTC370(Del)
..... under section 13 of the aforesaid act. she states that she has made its packaging unique and distinctive in order to distinguish the goods from those of ..... owner of copyright in `artistic work' comprised in the style of writing and representation of the trademark 'whole foods', as also in the get-up, layout, arrangement of features, colour scheme and appearance of the packaging within the meaning of section 2(c) of the copyright act, 1957 and is, thereforee, entitled to copyright protection ..... the goods which are sold by the defendants are that of plaintiff and, thereforee, the defendants are guilty of passing off as well as infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in its 'whole foods' packaging inasmuch as the plaintiff submits that the unlawful adoption by the defendants, of the plaintiff's mark/trading .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)293ITR216(Delhi)
..... in the case of consolidated coffee 248 itr 432. in that case, the assessment was under karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957. rule 7 of rules made thereunder provided that deduction admissible under the act shall be the actual amount related to the income derived from agricultural operations and proved by accounts or other evidence ..... is exempt from taxation however, a new section i.e. section 14a has been inserted by finance act, 2001 retrospectively which provides as under: section 14a : for the purpose of computing the total income under this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income ..... which does not form part of the total income under this act.according to the learned dr, this retrospective amendment has nullified the ratio laid .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 140(2007)DLT765; 2007(95)DRJ683
..... a school in the year 1952, which school was taken over by the mcd when it was formed under the dmc act 1957. it was alleged that petitioner trespassed into the suit land in the year 1973. proceedings were initiated for his eviction under section ..... because he was challenged the moment he trespassed into the property. mcd could have resisted the trespass by use of even reasonable force. act of re-entry by mcd would have been lawful. i repeat litigious possession cannot create settled possession. 103. having lost the battle before ..... assistant. said order has attained finality. petitioner managed to retain possession under strength of interim orders. ejectment proceedings under the delhi land reforms act 1954 have attained finality, but warrant of possession could not be executed as petitioner had an interim stay in the suit. the said ..... pradeep nandrajog, j.1. dealing with possession, in chapter 9, salmond on jurisprudence (12th edition), states that few relationships are as vital to man as that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2007Delhi226; 140(2007)DLT758; 2007(34)PTC668(Del)
..... is providing cable television services through their associate or affiliated companies, agents, franchises or distributors.3. the appellants-plaintiffs in the plaint have alleged violation of the provisions of the copyright act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the actor short) by the defendant/ respondent. it is alleged that the appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of ..... breach of an obligation existing in his favor whether expressly or by implication. this is, however, subject to other provisions contained in chapter ii of the specific relief act. sub-section 3 of the section 38 of the specific relief act states that the plaintiff has right to claim injunction when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 142(2007)DLT724; LC2007(2)269; 2007(35)PTC95(Del)
..... bansal, learned counsel for the defendant, further submits that the plaintiff has no registration of the pillow pack and label under the copyright act, 1957. it has placed no advertisement or invoices relating to this copyright. an oral submission has been made that m/s nestle is selling a product known as 'smarties' in a packaging which is ..... popularity of the plaintiff's products entitling the plaintiff to sustain its passing off action against the defendant. the defendant is prima facie also violating thereby the copyright of the plaintiff in the artistic work of plaintiff's packaging.49. it is trite that the resemblance between the trademark and the labels may be ..... of the proprietor under the registration. the registration of a trade mark confers substantial advantages on its proprietor as will appear from the sections grouped together in chapter iv under the heading 'effect of registration'. it is however a notorious fact that there is a tendency on the part of some proprietors to get .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(35)PTC285(Del)
..... the purpose and intention would be the relevant criterion to consider whether the drawings are design in the light of the provisions of the designs act and the copyright act, 1957. no argument is advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs that the ultimate purpose of the drawing was not for the purpose of manufacture but ..... is the 'moulds' are built. this conduct makes the defendants liable under the provisions of section 51 read with section 55 of the copyright act, 1957 for infringement of the copyright of plaintiffs in the artistic works forming part of the present suit.36. the answer of the defendants, on the other hand, is ..... similarity between the two products. thereforee, the defendants have, by manufacturing infringing products, produced 'infringing copies' as defined under section 2(m) of the copyright act, 1957. it is further submitted that the manufacture of infringing products having a striking resemblance to the tupperware products could have been achieved by the defendants by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(3)173; 2007(35)PTC687(Del)
..... 2004(28)ptc251(sc) where it has been held that the object and reason for the introduction of section 62(2) of the copyright act, 1957 was not to restrict the owner of the copyright to exercise their rights but to remove any impediment from their doing so. thus the said provision cannot be read as limiting the ..... the plaintiffs.issue no. 4:whether the defendant's use of the mark ''seventh up/7th up constitutes infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trademark, infringement of copyright, passing off and dilution? opp20. a perusal of the documents shows that there is not only similarity but also identical representation of the trademark by the defendant ..... the plaintiffs claim infringement of the trademark on account of visual similarity, phonetic similarity, ocular similarity and structural similarity.7. the plaintiffs also claim infringement of copyright in view of the ownership in the logo and an attempt by the defendant to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiffs. in fact the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2008(1)128; 2008(36)PTC290(Del)
..... by the plaintiff also does not establish any case for any damages other than the plea of general damages which may be awarded in case of infringement of trademark of copyright.70. issue is answered against the plaintiff.issue no. 6:relief.71. in view of the findings arrived at, the suit of the plaintiff is without any ..... distinguishing the goods or services of one person from choose of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours , andi) in relation to chapter xii (other than section 107), a registered trade mark or mark used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a ..... present name of m/s hawkins cookers limited in the year 1986. the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark hawkins from 06.05.1957 in class 21 under the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 in respect of pressure cookers and parts thereof. the trademark registration no. 179714 is for hawkins universal but the mark registered is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 147(2008)DLT293
..... on such a strict interpretation, only those orders would be revisable which are orders passed on the final determination of the action but are not appealable under chapter xxix of the code. this does not seem to be the intention of the legislature when it retained the revisional power of the high court in terms identical ..... has been pointed out repeatedly, vide, for example, the river wear commissioners versusam adamson (1) and r.m.d. chamarbaugwalla v. the union of india : [1957]1scr930 that although the word occurring in a particular statute are plain and unambiguous, they have to be interpreted in a manner which would fit in the context of the ..... against the summoning order dated 18th july, 2001 passed by the learned metropolitan magistrate, new delhi ('mm') summoning the petitioners under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act, 1881 ('ni act') in complaint case no. 639/1999 filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. by the impugned order, the learned mm after perusing the complaint, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)111ITD112(Delhi)
..... programmes have all these attributes." 51. as already noted, a similar contention as raised on behalf of the assessees before us relying on the relevant provisions of the copyright act, 1957 was also raised before the hon'ble supreme court in the case of tcs (supra) and while specifically dealing with the same, it was observed by his ..... , ld. cit -dr appeared for the revenue and made submissions in the light of the provisions of the copyright act, 1957. his submission was that the definition of capital asset as given in section 2 (14) of the act was wide enough to include property of any kind. when an assessee acquires computer software he acquires a capital ..... s.b. sinha, who wrote a separate but concurring judgment as follows:- reference by mr. sorabjee to the provisions of the copyright act, in my opinion, was not apposite. the copyright act and the sales tax act are also not statutes in pari materia and as such the definition contained in the former should not be applied in the latter. .....
Tag this Judgment!