Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Page 4 of about 5,310 results (0.042 seconds)

Jun 21 1984 (HC)

Entertaining Enterprises, Madras and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1984Mad278

..... the protection of the copyright act and what are the punishments for infringement thereof will clearly fall within the legislative power of the parliament under entry 49 of list 1 'patents, inventions and designs; copyright: trademarks and merchandise marks.' and the state legislature cannot bring in new rights under the copyright act and make the infringement a more serious offence than .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Seshasayee Bros. P. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1981)20CTR(Mad)299; [1981]127ITR218(Mad)

..... sought the question that has been referred. 3. among the objects of the company as seen from the memorandum were the following : '3. (1) to purchase or otherwise acquire any patents, brevets and inventions, licences, concessions and the like conferring any exclusive or non-exclusive or limited right to use any invention or privilege, which may seem capable of being used .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1976 (HC)

West Coast Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1977]107ITR483(Mad)

..... or tenements, goods or chattels which does not depend on another's courtesy: it includes ownership, estates and interests in corporeal things, and also rights such as trade-marks, copyrights, patents and even rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts ; and signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as having a money value, especially with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2013 (HC)

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

..... before any court, including the supreme court, tribunals and other authorities, such right of an advocate cannot be tampered with by the respondents, in the name of patent agent. advocates, being law graduates doing part of their work in respect of drafting, preparing documents, filing and appearing before the authorities, apart from arguing cases ..... advocates act, 1961" has been unreasonably deleted by the respondents, without any justifiable reason. therefore, preventing advocates, better qualified persons and retaining less qualified persons as patent agents, on the basis of the examination conducted by the respondents would not be justified under the pretext of reasonable classification, hence, the impugned amendment is violative of ..... in imparting education and conducting examinations, especially in law and drafting, the recognised universities are more competent than the respondents, who are conducting only departmental examination in patents act and drafting and therefore, advocates, being law graduates of any recognised university, approved by bar council are certainly better qualified persons in legal acumen, drafting and ..... under article 14 of the constitution.18. the other important aspect argued by the petitioner is that by conducting the qualifying departmental examination, the controller of patents under the ministry of commerce and industry, is usurping the power and unreasonably claiming supremacy over the law degree given by universities and law colleges and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2014 (HC)

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. 1.M.Seeniammal

Court : Chennai

..... vs. 1.t.raju 2.the correspondent punitha arockia annai higher secondary school punalvasal post pattukottai taluk thanjavur district. ... respondents prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 11.08.2011 in w.p.(md) no.8539 of 2010. for appellants : mr.vr.shanmuganathan special government pleader for respondents ..... officer, nagercoil, kanyakumari district. 4.the district educational officer, kuzhithurai taluk kanyakumari district. ... appellants vs. s.rajayyan ... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 04.04.2013 in w.p.(md) no.5220 of 2013. for appellants : mr.b.pugalendhi special government pleader for respondents : ..... social welfare, chennai. 3.the district social welfare officer, toovipuram ii thoothukudi district. ... appellants vs. s.maragathavalli ... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 26.04.2011 in w.p.(md) no.4666 of 2011. for appellants : mr.k.chellapandian additional advocate general assisted by ..... welfare, chennai. 3.the district social welfare officer, eagle compound nagercoil kanyakumari district. ... appellants vs. v.vasanthabai ... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 27.04.2011 in w.p.(md) no.4912 of 2011. for appellants : mr.k.chellapandian additional advocate general assisted by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2014 (HC)

M.C.Jayasingh Vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited

Court : Chennai

..... every advancement made to the existing knowledge, was actually slender. i do not know whether these small adjustments and alterations, which offered better flexion and movement to patients, were patented and if patented, whether their validity was tested. but, one thing is clear, namely that every advancement or development, was aimed at making the prosthesis sync with human anatomy, so that ..... are many instances in various branches of science of independent investigators making the same discovery. that does not prevent the one who first applies and gets a patent from having a good patent, for a patent represents a quid pro quo. the quid to the patentee is the monopoly; the quo is that he presents to the public the knowledge which they ..... his actions were safe and lawful.' letter to mcpherson, supra at 181, 182. apparently agreed with jefferson and the board that the courts should develop additional conditions for patentability. although the patent act was amended, revised or codified some 50 times between 1790 and 1950, congress steered clear of a statutory set of requirements other than the bare novelty and utility ..... which we set out in the margin. [footnote 2]. he rejected a natural rights theory in intellectual property rights and clearly recognised the social and economic rationale of the patent system. the patent monopoly was not designed to secure to the inventor his natural right in his discoveries. rather, it was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new knowledge. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2013 (HC)

F.Hoffmannla Roche Ltd Vs. Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd

Court : Chennai

..... all plaintiffs, while filing the suits. they should have made an unequivocal disclosure about the x-ray diffraction pattern and other technical details of the compound for which the patent has been granted. the appellants have ignored the said direction of the court, completely, while filing the suit.45. it had been further stated that even though a ..... , for infringing indian patent no.196774, in respect of the manufacture and sale of products containing `erlotib hydrochloride'. 7.10 the plaintiffs had initiated legal proceedings against cipla limited, before the high ..... would clearly show that the impugned product is manufactured by natco pharma limited and being sold by the defendant, within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, infringing the indian patent no.196774. 7.9. the plaintiffs had preferred a number of suits before the high court of delhi against the various infringing pharmaceutical companies and their distributors and agents ..... advertising, exporting, importing, offering for sale and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in pharmaceuticals or any chemical compound product that infringes the subject matter of indian patent no.196774, registered by the plaintiffs, pending disposal of the suit.6. by a common order, dated 12.12.2011, the learned single judge of this court had allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2013 (HC)

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd Vs. Dycommissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

..... this order elaborated upon the various terms and conditions, which bind the parties had observed that the earlier transfer of the trade mark, patents and other rights in favour of the assessee was undoubtedly the transfer of intangible assets, which in terms of section 32(1)(ii) ..... since non compete, at best could be a commercial right because that right is relatable to the transfer of trade mark, copy rights and patents. therefore, the view taken by the commissioner of income tax(appeals) in this regard is acceptable.23. in the case of techno shares ..... assessee. therefore, the non compete clause under the agreement should be read as a supporting clause to the transferor of the copy rights and patents rather to strengthen the commercial right, which was transferred in favour of the assessee.22. learned counsel for the assessee contended that the non ..... business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed -]. therefore, in terms of the above provision, deduction is allowable in respect of depreciation of patents, copy rights, trade marks, licence, franchise, etc or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. there is no difficulty insofar as ..... relevant to refer to the said provision,which reads as under: ".depreciation:32. 1) [in respect of depreciation of (i)............ (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2014 (HC)

1.The Principal Secretary, Vs. M.Palanikani

Court : Chennai

..... .a.thoulath beevi 43.j.ponmudy 44.s.alice 45.g.mary rosline pelisal 46.s.rajeswari 47.v.santha ..respondents prayer : writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act to set aside the order dated 11.06.2013, passed in w.p.(md.no.5316 of 2013. w.p.(md.no.12689 of 2014:- i.suseela ..petitioner versus ..... . 6.principal accountant general (accounts and entitlements).tamil nadu, no.361, anna salai, chennai ?. 600 018..appellants versus a.tamilarasi ..respondent prayer : writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act to set aside the order dated 27.06.2012, passed in w.p.(md.no.7529 of 2011. w.a.(md.no.1024 of 2014:- 1.the government of ..... . 6.principal accountant general (accounts and entitlements).tamil nadu, no.361, anna salai, chennai ?. 600 018..appellants versus p.mary ..respondent prayer : writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act to set aside the order dated 27.06.2012, passed in w.p.(md.no.7070 of 2011. w.a.(md.no.606 of 2014:- 1.the government of ..... . 4.principal accountant general (accounts and entitlements).tamil nadu, no.361, anna salai, chennai ?. 600 018 ..appellants versus m.palanikani ..respondent prayer : writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act to set aside the order dated 27.06.2012, passed in w.p.(md.no.8287 of 2011. w.a.(md.no.605 of 2014:- 1.the government of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2013 (HC)

M.S.Padmanabhan Vs. S.Arumugam

Court : Chennai

..... .murali 8. a.p.sureshkumar 9. c.venugopal 10. arvind ramarathnam 11.sbs.raman 12. r.l.nerula .. respondents prayer: revision application filed under clause 15 of the letters patents act read with section 114 and order 47 rule 1 of cpc, seeking to review the common order passed in o.s.a.no.408 of 2012 and o.s ..... 8. v.murali 9. r.l.nerula 10.sbs.raman 11 a.p.sureshkumar 12. c.venugopal .. respondents prayer: revision application filed under clause 15 of the letters patents act read with section 114 and order 47 rule 1 of cpc, seeking to review the common order passed in o.s.a.no.408 of 2012 and o.s ..... sureshkumar 8. c.venugopal 9. arvind ramarathnam 10.ishwar achanta 11.sbs.raman 12.mr.r.l.nerula .. respondents prayer: revision application filed under clause 15 of the letters patents act read with section 114 and order 47 rule 1 of cpc, seeking to review the common order passed in o.s.a.no.408 of 2012 and o.s ..... mr.v.murali 9. mr.r.l.nerula 10.sbs.raman 11.a.p.sureshkumar 12.c.venugopal .. respondents prayer: revision application filed under clause 15 of the letters patents act read with section 114 and order 47 rule 1 of cpc, seeking to review the common order passed in o.s.a.no.408 of 2012 and o.s ..... mr.v.murali 9. mr.r.l.nerula 10.sbs.raman 11.a.p.sureshkumar 12.c.venugopal .. respondents prayer: revision application filed under clause 15 of the letters patents act read with section 114 and order 47 rule 1 of cpc, seeking to review the common order passed in o.s.a.no.408 of 2012 and o.s .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //