Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi1; ILR1977Delhi412; 1977RLR440
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This first appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, who declded the suit between the parties on the Original Side of the High Court. The appeal, preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge delivered on December 15. 1972. was admitted on February 28, 1973. That appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (Coram : S. N. Andley. C. J. and Prakash Narain. J.). The Bench by its order of April 30, 1974 framed an additional issue and remanded the case back to the learned single Judge for a finding on the said issue and disposal of the suit thereafter. The second judg-ment in consequence of the remand order was delivered on January 27. 1975. The matter thereafter came up before us. (2) The plaintiff/appellant produces and markets a toy called a viewer. This viewer uses a 35 mm. medially cut positive film on which are printed one or more pictures viewed through a lens fitted in a viewer specially adapted fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT865
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The souring of relationship between joint venture partner's has given rise to the present dispute where the respondent is aggrieved by the alleged infringement of its patents by the appellant. A suit was thus filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for mandatory injunction from manufacturing and advertising as its own and selling the products of respondent for which respondent has registered patents and design, in India or any where in the world for the product range of electric contractors and accessories known as the D2 range. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 27.11.2000 of the learned Single Judge allowing interim application of the respondent is No. 8522/99 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the order dated 27.11.2000 dismissing is No. 6504/2000 filed by the appellant after the judgment had been reserved by the learned Single Judge on the injunction application. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :05. 09.2013 Judgment pronounced on :23. 09.2013 + W.P.(C) 1631/2013 PUNEET KAUSHIK AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv with Mr Praveen Anand, Ms. Divya Vijan, Ms. Ayushi Kiran & Ms. Neeti Wilson, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Adv. & Dr. Kavita Taunk, Assistant Controller of Patents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court claim to have filed on 14.9.2012, in the Patents Office (India) at New Delhi, an international (PCT) application in terms of Rule 18.3 of the PCT Rules, enclosing therewith (i) Form-25 (in duplicate) on behalf of petitioner no.1 Puneet Kaushik (ii) Power of Attorney for Form-25 (copy) (iii) PCT Request along with Declaration of Inventorship (in duplicate) (iv) PCT Power of Attorney (v) complete specification along with drawings (in duplicate) (vi) PCT fee c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal725,152Ind.Cas.914
Panckridge, J.1. The circumstances in which this Rule has been issued upon the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, and upon the Controller of Patents are as follows:The National Carbon Company, Incorporated, carry on business in New York, where they manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights and electric torches. They are the grantees of Indian Patent No. 17148 of 1930. In the specification, which was accepted on 8th December 1930, the invention is described as relating 'to dry cells and particularly to improved means of closing and sealing such cells.' I shall hereafter refer to the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, as 'the patentees.2. The Bright Star Battery Company are incorporated in the United States of America, and they also manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights. They offer their goods for sale in India through Messrs. Brough & Co., a firm carrying on business in Bombay. In December 1931, the patentees instituted a suit on the original ...
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 : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... ltd. vs. thukral mechanical works, (air 1988 delhi 282) the honble delhi high court referred to section 31 of the act, which speaks of the prima facie evidence of validity. in a.k.kraipak and others vs. union of india, and others (2009 (39) ptc 627; air 1970 sc 150) the honble supreme court held that the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice and they can appeal only in areas not covered by any law validly made. in other ..... provides for trade marks being registered if there is no opposition or if the opposition has been dismissed. similarly, section 25 of the patents act, 1970 provides for opposition to grant of patent once these stages are crossed and the trade mark is registered or the patent is granted, then the person aggrieved is entitled to file a rectification application under section 57 of the trade marks act or revocation application under section 64 of the act patents act, 1970. the law relating to stay and injunction will not allow such a person to claim the balance of convenience in his favour by ..... decisions of the board itself and in law there should be certainty. with that view alone and in the interest of justice this larger bench heard this question. 51. the registry shall issue certified copies of this order free of cost to all those who had made their oral and written submissions. all the other members of the bar, who desire to have certified copies, may obtain them on payment of the required fees. 50. this reference is answered as above.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... patents act, 1970 (39 of 1970); (c) xxxx xxx xxxx" 172. it follows from the above that whilst an agreement which imposes reasonable condition for protecting patent rights is permissible, an anti competitive agreement which imposes unreasonable conditions would not be afforded the safe harbor of section 3(5) of the competition act and would fall foul of section 3 of the competition act. the ..... restructured the existing provisions relating to public interest, compulsory licensing, government use, national security, protection of traditional knowledge and protection of public health and nutrition as contained in chapter xvi (working of patents, compulsory licences and revocation) of the patents act. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx there are provisions in the bill providing a wide-ranging and powerful ..... standards, list of seps of ericsson, basis for charging licence fees as percentage of final product, illustrative rate charged to similarly placed parties; cost incurred etc. further, certain senior employees of ericsson have also been summoned to record their statement on oath before the dg ..... be legitimate under the general laws would nonetheless be subject to the rigors of the competition act. section 60 cannot be read to curtail or whittle down the provisions of other statutes; this interpretation would also be in sync with provisions of section 62 of the competition act as indicated above. 150. in any case, in the event of any irreconcilable inconsistency between the two legislations, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1969Bom255; (1974)76BOMLR130
1. This is a suit for infringement of patent under Section 29 of the Indian patents and Designs Act, 1911, filed by the plaintiffs who are the legal owners and proprietors of Indian Patent No. 58716 in respect of the manufacture of new sulphonyl-ureas, salts of those compounds and of anti-diabetic preparation containing such compounds. The application for the said patent was made by the plaintiffs on 23rd October 1956 and was accepted on 7th November 1957, but the same took effect from the 8th of May 1956 by reason of the provisions of Section 78A of the Patents and Designs Act. One of the chemical compounds comprised in the said patent is Tolbutamide, and since 1957 the plaintiffs have been marketing the same as an anti-diabetic drug in India and all over the world under the trade mark 'Rastinon'. The suit was originally filed only against the present first defendants who, according to the Plaintiffs, have since May 1961 wrongfully and with full knowledge of the plaintiffs' said paten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:23. 05.2014 Judgment pronounced on:19. 12.2014 LPA8842013 & CM43302014 PUNEET KAUSHIK & ANR. ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Pravin Anand and Ms Divya Vijan Bajaj. For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P.Singh and Dr Kavita Taunk for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal challenges the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1631/2013. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant within six (6) weeks from today, 27.09.2012 as the international filing date in respect of the PCT application submitted by the petitioners to the Indian Patent Office on 14.09.2012 and assign a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:23. 05.2014 Judgment pronounced on:19. 12.2014 LPA8842013 & CM43302014 PUNEET KAUSHIK & ANR. ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Pravin Anand and Ms Divya Vijan Bajaj. For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P.Singh and Dr Kavita Taunk for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal challenges the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1631/2013. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant within six (6) weeks from today, 27.09.2012 as the international filing date in respect of the PCT application submitted by the petitioners to the Indian Patent Office on 14.09.2012 and assign a...
Tag this Judgment!