Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 5 Sorted by: old Court: trademark Page 1 of about 17 results (0.040 seconds)

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 .....

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 .....

Anthony Kavalakattu Trading as Vs. E.M.i. Records Limited

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(24)PTC738Reg

..... of the applicants, but after hearing in the matter and the applicants on producing a certificate of incorporation issued by the registrar of companies, cochin, kerala and amending the name of the applicants to read as 'lunar rubbers private limited, the application was ordered to be advertised as accepted for registration in part a of the ..... that the applicant's mark is a reproduction of the opponent's mark. i reiterate that the description of the opponent's mark given in this para is patently wrong. i further deny that the applicants have lifted the concept of the opponent's trade mark. the concept or idea behind the opponent's mark in ..... thereby pass off their goods as for opponents' goods. therefore, the applicants cannot claim to be the proprietors within the meaning of section 18(1) of the act. he accordingly prayed that the registrar should exercise his discretion adversely to the applicants and the impugned application may be refused registration with costs to the opponents in respect .....

A. Krishna (Dr.) Vs. Research Drugs and Pharmaceuticals

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC677Reg

..... since 1974 according to applicants' own statement, why they have applied as proposed to be used and such type of amendment cannot allow as per the act and applicants request for amendment cannot be allowed as per the act and only deserves to be rejected. at this juncture we would like to draw kind attention of the tribunal towards ..... i will deal with the opponents' next objection raised under section 11(a) of the act. this section is invoked on the allegation that the impugned mark is likely to cause confusion and deception among the public and trade. this objection is ap patently based on the alleged use and reputation of the opponents's trade mark 'ludem' ..... by the applicants, when they filed the application for registration, as 'proposed to be used', and on filing of the subject opposition by the opponents the applicants amended the usage of the impugned trade mark with a mere intention to defend their case. otherwise, had the applicants used the mark since the year 1974, they would .....

B. Rosaiah Vs. F. Hoffman La Roche Ag

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC134Reg

..... of law. the objection raised under section 11(e) is, therefore, sustained.40. now, i will take up the objection raised under section 9 of the act. under this objection, the opponents alleged that the applicants' mark was neither adopted to distinguish nor capable of distinguishing their goods. as per tests of acquired distinctiveness ..... practitioner, hospitals and trade. the objection raised under section 11 (a) is, therefore, sustained.39. as regards objection raised under section 11(e) of the act, in view of my findings that the impugned trade mark is deceptively and confusingly similar to the opponents' registered trade mark, and the adoption of the impugned trade ..... registrable. it is neither adopted to distinguish, nor capable of distinguishing the applicants' goods and thus it does not satisfy the requirements of section 9 of the act. (8) that the applicants' are not the proprietors of the mark. they have no reason or justification in filing the application for registration of an .....

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 .....