Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT278; 2006(32)PTC91(Del)
..... (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed. (2)without prejudice to the provisions contained ..... of the act under the 1911 act and those proceedings be continued as if the 2000 act had not been passed. the corresponding provision to section 51a of 1911 act dealing with cancellation of registration is section 19 of 2000 act where the ambit and scope has been expanded and additional grounds have been added. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a learned single judge of the bombay high court had the occasion to consider the effect of this repeal provision of 2000 act in faber castell aktiengesellschaft v. pikpen (p) ltd. 2003 (27) ptc 538. the relevant section 48 is as under :'48.repeal and savings.-(1)the design act, 1911 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR139; 2003(6)BomCR65; 2003(4)MhLj264; 2003(27)PTC538(Bom); [2003]45SCL362(Bom)
..... ng the ground for cancellation provided only by the new act, i.e., designs act, 2000.the question is whether the cancellation of the design in question is governed by the designs act, 2000 or the designs act, 1911. the designs act, 2000 i.e. act no. 16 of 2000 was enacted on 25.5.2000 as 'an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to protection of designs'. this enactment repeals the earlier act i.e. the designs act, 1911. section 48 of the new act reads as follows:-'48. repeal and savings.--the designs act, 1911 (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed.(2) without prejudice to the provisions contained in the general clauses act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice design, determination, direction ..... liable to be cancelled under section 19 of the designs act, 2000. such a ground for cancellation is available as a ground of defence by virtue of section 22(3) of the designs act, 2000 and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction based on such a design which has been published in a country outside india i.e. the u.s.a. as well as in india. now it must be noted that under the designs act, 1911, only a design not previously registered in india could be registered vide section 43. likewise, a petition for cancellation of the registration of the design could be presented on the ground that the design had been published in india prior to the date of registration vide section 51a. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN447,2005(30)PTC140(Cal)
..... has come into force. in order to answer this question, the court has to consider the new act as a whole as also the provisions of repeal under the new act.17. chapter xi of the new act deals with the provisions of repeal and saving under section 48. the said section is as under :'48. repeal and savings.--(l) the designs act, 1911 (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed.(2) without prejudice to the provisions contained in the general clauses act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice, decision, determination, direction, approval, authorisation, consent, application, request or thing ..... classification under the old act. the new act introduces additional grounds under section 19(1) for cancellation of registration as compared to the grounds in section 51a of the old act. one of the grounds of cancellation in the new act is that the design has been published in india or in any other country prior to the date of registration. but the ground for cancellation under the old act was the publication of the design only in india prior to the date of registration. apart from that there are two additional grounds of cancellation under the new act incorporated under clauses (d) and (e) of section 19(1) of the new act. section 4 of the new act provides for grounds for prohibition of registration of certain designs. section 4 of the new act is also a new provision .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)1CALLT290(HC),2006(3)CHN188,2006(33)PTC434(Cal)
..... the priority date of the application for registration; a design which is not significantly distinguishable from known designs; and a design which combination of known designs or comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter. there was no provision in the designs act, 1911 corresponding to section 4 of the 2000 act which expressly prohibited the registration of any design. section 4 restricts publication whether in india or in any other country to publication in 'tangible form'.26. section 51a of the designs act, 1911 which more or less corresponds to section 19 of the 2000 act provided as follows:51a. cancellation of registration,-(1) any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design-(a) at any time after the registration of the design, to the high court on any ..... other country prior to the date of registration, or(c) that the design is not a new or original design, or(d) that the design is not registrable under this act, or(e) that it is not a design as defined under clause (d) of section 2.(2) an appeal shall lie from any order of the controller under this section to the high court, and the controller may at any time refer any such petition to the high court, and the high court shall decide any petition so referred.23. in enacting the designs act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the 2000 act, which has repealed the designs act, 1911, earlier in force, parliament has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
JAMES v. ALLEN - 1 U.S. 188 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court JAMES v. ALLEN, 1 U.S. 188 (1786) 1 U.S. 188 (Dall.) James et al. v. Allen Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1786 The case was this: The Plaintiffs and the Defendant had been concerned together in trade; and upon settling their accounts, a considerable ballance appeared against Allen; for the recovery of which an action was brought in the State of New Jersey in May 1782; and judgment was therein obtained in November following, when a Fi. fa. issued, and on a return of Nulia bona to that writ, a Ca. Sa. was sued out returnable to May 1783 In the mean time, the Defendant, on the 27th of April 1783, was arrested in Pennsylvania for the same debt, and gave bail; but, on his return to New Jersey, he was there taken on the Ca. Sa. which Page 1 U.S. 188, 189 had issued in that State against him; and, afterwards, in October, 1783, was discharged by their Act of Insolvency. A rule to plead had been entere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
HOLLINGSWORTH v. OGLE - 1 U.S. 257 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court HOLLINGSWORTH v. OGLE, 1 U.S. 257 (1788) 1 U.S. 257 (Dall.) Holingsworth v. Ogle et. al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 This was an action of debt brought upon a bond, dated the 5th June, 1779; the penalty of the bond being in 'L200 hard Money computing half Joes at L3;' and the condition, for the payment of 'the full and just sum of L100 hard Money, or Specie, computing half Joes at L3; on the expiration of five Years, from the date, with lawful interest etc.' The Defendants pleaded Payment, to which the Plaintiff replied, Non Solverunt, and issue was thereupon joined. It appeared at the trial, that the bond was given in consideration of a sum of L500 Continental Currency, lent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants in June, 1779, when the scale of depreciation estimates that money at twenty for one. Ingersol and Sergeant, for the Defendants, contended, that the Plaintiff's demand was of an usurious n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
LEWIS v. MARIS - 1 U.S. 278 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court LEWIS v. MARIS, 1 U.S. 278 (1788) 1 U.S. 278 (Dall.) Lewis, Appellant v. Maris, Appellee High Court of Errors and Appeals of Pennsylvania April Sessions, 1788 This was an appeal from the Decree of the Register of Wills, and two Justices of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Montgomery, who admitted an instrument bearing date the 25th of the Tenth Month, 1786, purporting to be the last will and Testamont of one Jephtha Lewis, the father of the Appellant, to be proved as a good Will and Testament in writing, although it had neither been written, nor subscribed, by the supposed testator, upon the deposition of John Evans, a scrivener, that it was drawn at his request, and conformably to his instructions, but never read to him after it was written. This instrument contained a devise of real estate, and a legacy of L.400. for the use of a school, in the township of Gwyned, and county of Montgomery; and upon the validity...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
BOLTON v. MARTIN - 1 U.S. 296 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court BOLTON v. MARTIN, 1 U.S. 296 (1788) 1 U.S. 296 (Dall.) Bolton v. Martin Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1788 The Defendant was one of the members from Bedford county, in the State convention, which assembled at Philadelphia, to take into consideration the adoption, or rejection, of the constitution proposed for the Government of the United States, by the Federal Convention on the 17th of September 1787. During his attendance upon this duty, he was served with a Summons at the suit of the Plaintiff; and Sergeant obtained a rule to shew cause, why the Process should Page 1 U.S. 296, 297 not be quashed upon a suggestion, that the Defendant; acting in this public capacity, was entitled to privilege? The case was elaborately argued by Levy for the Plaintiff; and Sergeant and Bradford for the Defendant. Levy represented the question to be, simply, whether a member of the State Convention was protected, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
PLEASANTS v. MENG - 1 U.S. 380 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court PLEASANTS v. MENG, 1 U.S. 380 (1788) 1 U.S. 380 (Dall.) Pleasants v. Meng et al. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County December Term, 1788 Indebitatus Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered &c.; The Defendants pleaded that they were certificated bankrupts, and that the cause of action arose before the bankruptcy; to which the Plaintiff replied, that the certificate was unfairly obtained; and, on the trial of the cause, offered testimony in support of the four following exceptions to wit: 1. That the debt on which the commission was founded, had been contracted prior to the passing of the act for the regulation of bankrupts; 3 State Laws. 644. although a bond had been given for it since the Act was passed. 2. That the petition was exhibited by one person, in the name of himself and his partner, without any other than the general authority of the partnership; which is not sufficient for this purpose. [380-Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
CAMP v. LOCKWOOD - 1 U.S. 393 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court CAMP v. LOCKWOOD, 1 U.S. 393 (1788) 1 U.S. 393 (Dall.) Camp v. Lockwood Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County December Term, 1788 The Plaintiff and Defendant had both been inhabitants of Connecticut previous to the revolution, when the debt, for which this action is brought, was alledged to be contracted, and continued Page 1 U.S. 393, 394 so for some time after the commencement of the war. Subsequent, however, to the declaration of independence, the Plaintiff joined the British army, and, on the return of peace, he removed with other Loyalists to Halifax, where he continues to reside. On the second Thursday of May in the year 1778, the Legislature of Connecticut enacted a law declaring that all the estate, real and personal, of any person or persons who had joined the enemies of the United States, or had assisted them, or should thereafter do so, should be confiscated; and that, with respect to those persons wh...
Tag this Judgment!