Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 5 Court: trademark Page 1 of about 17 results (0.083 seconds)

Novartis Ag Vs. Cancer Patients Aid Association

Court : Trademark

..... applicant fails to prove enhanced efficacy of the isomer over the known substance.hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.14. the opponent said this appication was filed in india on my 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority date of july 18 ..... /1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. cancer patients aid association., india, on september 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar, new delhi filed reply .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... fails to prove enhanced efficacy of the p-isomer over the known substance.hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.14. the opponent said this application was filed in india on july 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority date of july 18 ..... /mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. natco pharma ltd., india, on may 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar, new delhi filed reply .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited

Court : Trademark

..... /mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition tinder section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. hetero drugs ltd., india, on august 22, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar, new delhi filed reply ..... only a new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.13. in view of the above findings and all the circumstances of the case, i hereby refuse to proceed with the application for .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... only a new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.13. in view of the above findings and all the circumstances of the case, i hereby refuse to proceed with the application for ..... for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application no. 1602/mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. lakshmi kumaran & sridharan, new delhi on behalf of m/s.ranbaxy laboratories ltd., india on may 26 .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment)act, 2005.12. the opponent said this application was filed in india on july 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority whereas switzerland was not ..... representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. gopakumar nair associates, mumbai on behalf of m/s. cipla ltd., mumbai on july 5, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar .....

Cadila Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC776Reg

..... the tm-16 by virtue of order dtd. 2.5.1997 passed by the hon'ble high court of gujarat. henceforth the name of the applicants company is amended to read as 'cadila healthcare ltd., zydus tower, satelite cross roads, sarkhej-gandhinagar highway, ahmedabad 380015'. shri shah thereafter drew my attention towards the flaws in ..... court while considering the interpretation of rule 3 of punjab and haryana high court rules requiring filing of copies of memorandum of appeal for valid presentation of letters patent appeal observed:- "we must always remember that procedural law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction that procedural prescriptions are the hand ..... bearing trade mark neopeptine. the ld.counsel for the applicants argued that applicants mark neoplatin is a coined word hence distinctive. section 9(5) of the act provides that in determining whether the trade mark is distinctive or capable of distinguishing the goods the tribunal might have regard to the extent to which the trace .....

Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC510Reg

..... of the parliament and as such the legislative intention reflects in the rules. furthermore, the controller general of patents, designs & trade marks, who is the registrar for the purpose of the act and who is responsible for implementation of the act and the rules has issued the directions to all the hearing officers of the trade marks registry, mumbai ..... as enshrined in rule 50(1) has already been discussed at length in earlier decision on the interlocutory petition in the case of torrent pharmaceuticals ltd. v. ucb 2005 (31) ptc 14 wherein the decision of hon'ble high court of delhi (2000 ptc - 24 del fb) has already been dealt with.before the above stated ..... , inter alia praying for taking the same on record and for any other relief.3. the interlocutory petition came up for final hearing before the undersigned on 5.4.2005, when mr. utkarsh tewari, advocate of international trade marks bureau for the opponents and mrs. meghasi adharayu, advocate of jatin y. trivedi & co. appeared for the .....

Asim Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2005)(31)PTC198Reg

..... applicant is ready to pay.3. in the present case, the applicant has filed tm-16 within the provisions of section 22 of the trade marks act, 1999 and rule 41 to amend the user and expression in relation thereto. "the registrar may, on such terms as he thinks just, at any time, whether before or after acceptance ..... but before the registration of the mark by way a request on form tm-16 with prescribed fee and the registrar is empowered to allow the said request until amendment sought amounts to be a substantial alteration.6. though, the provisions of the civil procedure code are not directly applicable yet the principles of the said code are applicable ..... application for correction of the register and this is not the case of correction of the register, but to amend the application for registration. she added, that even otherwise, the amendment to be carried out under section 22 of the act read with rule 41 enumerates to be substantial alterations which cannot be allowed. she prayed that in the .....

P.M. Diesels Ltd. Vs. Daimler Chrysler Ag

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2005)(31)PTC275Reg

..... goods falling in class 7 which the opponent has never opposed. this creates other surrounding circumstances in favour of the applicants to grant registration under section 12 of the act.26. in osram gesellschaft mit beschrankter haftung v. shyam sunder and ors., 2002 (25) ptc 198 (del)(db), it was held 'admittedly, respondent has been ..... vehicles) electric motors, mono blocks, submersible pumps, centrifugal pumps and parts thereof falling in class 7 under application no. 591019 under the provisions of trade & merchandise marks act, 1958. the user of the mark was claimed since 1.4.1988. eventually, the impugned application was advertised as accepted in the trade marks journal no. 1215( ..... 's trade mark would not be contrary to the provisions of sections 12(1) of the act.8. on 24.9.2002, the opponent filed evidence by way of statutory declaration of derek moore in his capacity of a patent attorney of the opponent co. alongwith exhibit 'a' contained several enclosures including 2 invoices dated .....

Rajarappa Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kamdhenu Ispat Limited

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC670Reg

..... ) of the act. the question now only arises as to whether the request on form tm-44 alongwith the notice of opposition filed by the above named opponents on 26th july, 2005 is within the statutory period or not.2. pursuant to this office letter no. top/4067 dated 11th august, 2005 m/s. delhi registration service, patent and trade mark ..... attorneys, new delhi instructed by the above named opponents submitted a detailed reply under their attorney's letter dated 26th august, 2005 stating that sub-rule (6) of rule 47 is in fact subordinate or aiding to section 21(1) of the act and thus the same cannot and do not over ..... the matter be proceeded with in accordance with the law.3. the above matter came up for hearing before me on 30th november, 2005, when mr. h.p. shukla, advocate instructed by m/s. delhi registration service, patent and trade mark attorneys, new delhi appeared on behalf of the opponents in the above matter.4. mr. h.p. shukla, .....