Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)3CALLT71(HC),2004(29)PTC665(Cal),[2004]51SCL498(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 213 of 2003 has taken out this interlocutory application (G.A. No. 2709 of 2003) dated July 31st, 2003. The prayers in the suit are as follows :--'(a) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way infringe (sic) or causing, enabling others to infringe the design of KARATACHI glass registered under No. 183322 by using the glass design as shown in annexure 'B' to the plaint;(b) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way infringe (sic) or causing, enabling others to infringe the copyright in the artistic work by making three dimensional reproduction thereof in glasses;(c) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way passing off design glasses of the plaintiff by manufacturing and/or selling glass having...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1.1 The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) conducted investigations into dealings in the shares of Design Auto Systems Ltd. (DASL) for the period between August 2001 and January 2002 pursuant to a preferential allotment made by the said company to another company called Bonanza Biotech Ltd. (BBL) on swap basis in the ratio of 1:1.Both DASL and BBL shares were listed on various stock exchanges. DASL shares were listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd (BSE), Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange (MPSE) and Ahmedabad Stock Exchange (ASE). BBL shares were listed on BSE and MPSE. The case history leading to the investigation is as under: (a) DASL made a preferential allotment of 10 crore of its shares (said shares) to BBL on October 29, 2001 which was about 14 times of the pre-issue paid up capital of DASL. The consideration was another preferential allotment of 10 crore shares made by BBL to DASL on the same date which was about 5 times of the pre-issue paid up capital of BBL before th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)2MLJ91; 2004(29)PTC62(Mad)
V. Kanakaraj, J.1. Application No. 4458 of 2003 has been filed praying to transfer O.S. No. 1 of 2002 and all its connected applications from the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Pudukottai to this Court, as provided both under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000 and also under Section 24(5) of the C.P.C.2. Application No. 4459 of 2003 has been filed praying to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 1 of 2002 and all its connected applications pending on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, pending disposal of the above transfer application.3. Application No. 4980 of 2003 has been filed by the respondent in the main transfer application praying to vacate the stay granted in A. No. 4459 of 2003, dated 17.10.2003.4. In the affidavit filed in support of the above main transfer application, the applicant who is the defendant in the suit would submit that the respondent herein has filed a suit under Order 7, Rule 1 of CPC read with Sections 27, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2009(2)229; 2009(40)PTC519(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This appeal bearing RFA (OS) No. 25/2006 arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13 th January, 2006 in Suit No. 1480/2002. 2. Since certain common issues arise in this appeal and the other two appeals i.e. FAO (OS) No. 326/2007 filed by Dart Industries Inc. and FAO (OS) No. 447/2008 filed by Mattel Inc., on the question of interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act read with Section 2(d) of the Designs Act and Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and their interplay with each other, we have permitted the parties in the connected appeals also to make submissions on the common legal principles arising in these appeals. However, the aforesaid two appeals bearing FAO(OS) Nos. 326/2007 and 447/2008 will be taken up for hearing on facts and other pleas after the pronouncement of the judgment in the present appeal bearing RFA(OS) No. 25/2006 in the appeal titled Microfibres v. Girdhar & Co. and Anr. 3. The appellant manufactures and sells uphol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 128(2006)DLT238; 2006(32)PTC157(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff's grievance of violation of its copyright in the artistic works applied to upholstery fabrics and the allegation of an attempt to pass off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the USA and is stated to be engaged worldwide in the business relating to manufacturing, marketing, selling and exporting of upholstery fabrics directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates. The brand name of the plaintiff is stated to be Microforms. The business of the plaintiff is stated to have commenced in the year 1926 and the plaint states that on the upholstery fabrics are printed, unique and original artistic works which are conceptualized and drawn/printed by either its employees or other persons who have assigned the copyright in the works to the plaintiff. More than 1000 people are stated to be employed by the plaintiff and a global annual tu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT830
Vijender Jain, J.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction, inter alia, praying for injunction against infringement of design, passing off and rendition of accounts. It is the case of the applicants-plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in India and plaintiff No. 2 is a Corporation existing under the laws of Republic of China and having its registered officer at Taiwan. The applicants are the sole distributor and constituted attorney in India for the Top Open Locks and Pin Locks manufactured by plaintiff No. 2.2. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants-plaintiffs, has contended that plaintiffs are manufacturing unique and distinctive locks since the period of its registration under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000. Some of the salient features of the plaintiffs Top Open Locks are as under:-a) Top View: (i) It is a shackle having five (pentagon) layers.(ii) There is one top layer, two corner layers and two flat layers.(iii) The shac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 73(1998)DLT732
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiffs claiming to be engaged in the sale of suit cases all over the globe have instituted the suit against the defendants stating that the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's copyright in drawings; the defendants are passing off their goods and they are imitating the trade dress in making the suit cases to sell their products. The defendants resist the case of the plaintiffs on various grounds. In view of the fact that the parties relied heavily on their respective pleadings to project their respective contentions and the arguments covered a very wide canvass, it has become necessary for me to refer to the pleadings in the first instance and then to deal with the rival contentions put forth at the time of the arguments and the precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.2. The case of the plaintiffs could be recounted in the following terms. The first plaintiff Samsonite Corporation is a Company operating under the State of Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(2)SC148,LC2010(1)101,2010(1)SCALE714,(2010)2SCC535
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. Two First Appeals were filed in the Delhi High Court, being FAO No. 131 and 132 of 2008, against two orders, both dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for 'Insecticide Coil' in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent No. 1 herein. The question for determination before the High Court in the two appeals was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same against the order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. Inasmuch as, in the said two appeals, it was held by the Delhi. High Court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, these two appeals have been preferred by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. against the said decision.3. On 27th January, 2005, the Respondent No. 1 herein, M/s. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd., filed a suit, being C.S. (O.S.) No. 121 of 2005, against the appellant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
.* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on : February 19, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 15, 2013 I.A. No.11874/2012 in CS(OS) 1446/2011 MICOLUBE INDIA LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Vikas Khera & Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advs. Versus RAKESH KUMAR Trading As SAURABH INDUSTRIES & ORS. ..... Defendants Through : Mr. N.K. Anand, Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Monish Biala and Mr. Nischal Anand, Advs. Mr. Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jaspreet Sareen & Mr. Angad Varma, Advs. for the Interveners. AND CS(OS) 384/2008 & I.A. No.9537/2011, I.A. No.13404/2012 MOHAN LAL Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr. Ashok Goel & Mr. Ranjev Kumar, Advs. Versus SONA PAINT & HARDWARES ..... Defendants Through : Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. Rahul Vidhani & Mr. Arun Jain, Advs. Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) CS(OS) No.1446/2011 & CS(OS) No. 384/2008 Page No.1 of 94 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH HON'BLE ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi44; 2009BusLR280(Del); LC2009(1)252
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against the order dated 16th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the application of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the appellant/defendant from reproducing, printing, publishing and distributing, selling or offering for sale prints in any form, whatsoever that are colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's fabric prints including the underlying drawings/sketches thereof and dismissing the application of appellant (defendant in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 for vacation of ex-parte injunction order passed by this court on 2nd February, 2007.2. The Plaintiff-Respondent herein filed a suit CS (OS) No. 183/2007 on 01.02.2007 seeking a decree of permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts against the defendant for infringement of the Plaintiff's alleg...
Tag this Judgment!