Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Page 6 of about 5,310 results (0.035 seconds)

Nov 18 1976 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas-t.V.S. Limited (No. 1)

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1977]110ITR338(Mad)

..... assessee was on that account a mere licensee for a limited period of the technical knowledge of the swiss company with the right to use the patents and trade marks of that company.'14. after referring to the terms of the agreement, the supreme court further pointed out at page 701 :' ..... pointed out at page 699 :' the assessee did not, under the agreement, become entitled exclusively even for the period of the agreement, to the patents and trade marks of the swiss company; it had merely access to the technical knowledge and experience in the pharmaceutical field which the swiss company commanded ..... that 50% of such expenditure was capital in nature as it brought into existence an enduring asset, namely, necessary information for the manufacture of the patented articles, and therefore only 50% of the amounts paid by the assessee could be allowed as deduction. however, on appeal preferred by the assessee, ..... the grantor. under clause 7(a)(ii), in consideration of the licences and other rights granted under, the agreement in respect of the scheduled patents and the grantor's designs, a royalty amounting to two per cent., of the factory cost of all licensed devices and spare parts for such ..... clause (e) of the preamble states that the grantor had agreed to grant to the licensee such licence in connection with inventions comprised in the said patents and licensed devices as mentioned in the agreement. clause 2(d) defines ' non-exclusive right ' as meaning right enjoyed by the licensee in common .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brakes India Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1980)14CTR(Mad)259; [1982]136ITR322(Mad)

..... had only a licence for a limited period for making use of the technical knowledge of the foreign company with the right to use the patent, etc., and by reason of this agreement, the indian company did not acquire any kind of assets or an advantage of an enduring nature ..... assessee could carry on the business subsequently, of manufacturing brakes and other items used in automobiles, still if the manufactured items offend any of the patents, then the assessee would have to pay damages and could also be prevented from carrying on the manufacture. therefore, the assessee would not be in ..... shall hereafter obtain the control of any such improvement or addition to and in such case and whether the improvement or addition shall have been patented or not the grantor will (without payment, by the licensee of any further expenses occasioned thereby to the grantor) communicate and explain the same ..... devices manufactured and sold by the licensee, and... (iii) in consideration of the licence and other rights granted hereunder in respect of the schedule patents and the grantor's designs a royalty amounting to two per cent. of the factory cost of all licensed devices and spare parts for such ..... tools for all such equipment. the u.k. company was in possession of technical information relating to the above types of equipment. it also obtained patents in india in respect of several items of equipment. the assessee started to manufacture brakes and other items and, therefore, entered into an agreement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2004 (HC)

intas Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Novaritis A.G., Schwarzwalda ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2005(1)CTC27

..... at liberty to move the central government for necessary directions invoking the power of the central government conferred under section 24-d(2) of the patents act, 1970.11. from the above rival contentions made by either side on the validity of the emr granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs ..... or whether or not the invention involves any new inventive skill having regard to what was known or used prior to the date of the patent, it may not be just and proper to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from pursuing their normal business activities.7 ..... by the authority, the central government alone can, by notification, pass appropriate directions exercising the power conferred under section 24-d(2) of the patents act.4. pending the above suits, the respondents/plaintiffs sought for an order of interim injunction, which is identical in all the original applications and ..... approval to sell the identical product was granted in australia on 13.8.2001 followed by the proceedings dated 28.2.2002, by which, the patent product was granted in australia;(vi) on 4.12.2001, marketing approval for an identical product was granted in india in favour of the second ..... imalek','imanib','zoleta' and 'temsan' respectively or any other brandname/mark or otherwise; so long as the exclusive marketing right granted by the controller of patents on 10.11.2003 under emr no. 002 and notified in the official gazette on 13.12.2003 is subsisting;(b) for a direction to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2008 (HC)

In Re: G.V. Films Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2009]150CompCas415(Mad)

..... other than those that are demerged and vested in resulting companies pursuant to part ii and part iii of this scheme and shall include gv films trademarks, trade names, brands, patents, copyrights, logo, designs and all other intellectual property whether registered or unregistered.'76. part vi of the scheme states that 'the remaining business and all assets, liabilities and obligation pertaining ..... films other than those that are demerged and vested in resulting companies pursuant to part ii and part iii of this scheme and includes gv films trademarks, trade names, brands, patents, copyrights, logo, designs and all other intellectual property whether registered or unregistered.13. part ii of the scheme deals with demerger and vesting of gv studios division of gv films .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2002 (HC)

N. Rangaswamy Vs. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2003(26)PTC408(Mad)

..... the branch office of the respondent is situate within the jurisdiction of this court and as such, seeking leave under clause 12 of the letters patent is absolutely unnecessary. it is open to the respondent to establish by evidence during the course bf the trial about the non-existence of ..... which is outside the jurisdiction of the court and under the circumstance, the applicant ought to have taken leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. para 16 of the plaint relates to cause of action, wherein it is stated that the respondent continues to indulge in violations and making hectic ..... vandalism in petroleum tankers and also at the best price. the plaintiff cannot claim monopoly rights especially as the plaintiff does not have any registered patent in the alleged system. only in the reply affidavit, the plaintiff has for the first time claimed passing off. there is no whisper of ..... times commercial production of the articles by industrial process based on the drawings are made. abloy security limited are the proprietors of number of patents registered in us patent office as mentioned in para 'y'. the sealing of the tankers carrying petroleum products have been made mandatory by petroleum rules, 1976. the ..... based on the said system. the plaintiff having come to existence only in the year 1998, cannot claim any monopoly over the said patent. the life of the patent has long since expired and the technique involved has fallen into public domain and the system can now be used by any person. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2014 (HC)

Standard Corporation India Ltd Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd

Court : Chennai

..... . the learned counsel for the appellant had further stated that no relief against the alleged infringement of passing off can be claimed, in respect of the rights relating to copyrights, patents and designs. a claim can be made only in respect of infringement of such rights, under section 16 of the trade marks act, 1999.7. it had been further stated ..... in m.c.production vs. a.sundaresan (air1976madras22 wherein, it had been held as follows: ".section 15 declares that no copyright shall subsist in any design registered under the indian patents and designs act, 1911. sub-section (2) of this section deals with a particular design which is capable of being registered under the indian ..... patents and designs act, 1911, but, which has not been so registered. such design shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 1981 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. WavIn India Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1983]143ITR281(Mad)

..... one particular clause in the collaboration agreement provided that the indian concern will have to pay to the swiss company, a technical and research contribution for the use of patents. it was provided expressly in the agreement that the technical and research contribution had to be treated as a consideration for the scientific and technical assistance and as a ..... consideration should pass from the indian company to wavin. it was quite clear that the assessee obtained for a song from wavin technical information and know-how, the grant of patents and licences, and the results of research and development in wavin's foreign plant. 3. the collaboration agreement, however, contained one important clause under which the indian company ..... . in all these respects the collaboration pattern. however, in one significant respect the agreement in the present case manifests a difference. while wavin undertook to provide technical information, patents, licences and also research and development, the agreement did not provide for any consideration to pass from the indian company to wavin in respect thereof. the relevant clause in ..... hand. a study of the decided cases shows that the usual run of collaboration aids the indian concerns. first comes the running of the factory. provision for assignment of patents or provision for licence for working the parents, training of technical personnel, sharing of the results of the research and development, are some of the aspects of collaboration connected .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1902 (PC)

Major C. Bell, R.A., Superintendent Gun Carriage Factory Vs. the Munic ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1902)12MLJ208

..... crown is expressly included, i.e., section 17 of the inventions and designs act, 1888, which is substantially a reproduction of section 27 of the english patents etc. act, 1883.46. by way of illustration, i may mention the following instances in which government has been specially exempted:indian contract act, section ..... , and adol. 507 also cited in support of the petition, the question turned upon 3 geo. ii ch. p. 36, which confirmed a patent formerly granted by the crown for taking tolls in respect of a light-house. there was a proviso that nothing in the act should extend to ..... crown in its real sense. similarly the privilege of the crown to use an invention without compensation to the patentee, notwithstanding the grant of a patent for the exclusive right to the use of the invention and the implied exemption of the crown from payment of tolls, notwithstanding a grant, by ..... bound by the statute, and whenever it is intended to bind the crown, it is expressly named, e.g. the arbitration act, 1889, section 23; the patents etc., act, 1883, section 27; the bankruptcy act, 1883, section 150. the interpretation act, 1889, section 30., the stamp act, 1891, section 119.32 ..... the powers of the provincial legislatures, for section 43 contemplates provincial legislation, with the previous sanction of the governor-general, for regulating coins and patents or affecting the relations of government with foreign princes or states. a reference to sections 19 and 38 will show that both in the governor- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2004 (HC)

Maya Appliances Private Limited, Represented by Mr. Durairajan General ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2004(4)CTC334

..... high court held as follows: '14. learned counsel for the defendant mr.ajay sahni placed reliance on capital plastic industries v. kapitai plastic industries, 1989 patents and trademarks cases 98. in this case a division bench of this court held that the user of the trade mark rabber/ranber by the plaintiff and ..... the trade and merchandise marks act.'25. the above mentioned case was with regard to the granting of leave under clause 14 of the letters patent, where the bundle of facts revealed joinder of causes of action under the copyright act and the trade marks act for infringement and passing off ..... at the time of the instituting of the suit, that defect cannot be cured by subsequently granting leave to sue under clause 12 of the letters patent. that is a well settled proposition of law which cannot be disputed. 9. where leave under clause 12 is necessary, the granting of such ..... without obtaining leave, it is the admitted case of the applicant/plaintiff also that no leave was obtained for filing of this suit. clause 12 of letters patent act reads as follows: ' 12. original jurisdiction as to suits -- and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at madras, ..... features and attachments and no one can claim any exclusive right to any part or parts without a proper accredited registration of ownership of design and patents. 15. the respondents' mixer grinders are advertised and marketed only in the brand name of pigeon and on the strength of reputation established by them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1914 (PC)

Bhathey Sundara Rajan and ors. Vs. A.A. Kuppusami Iyer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1914)27MLJ573

..... he paid balian, that is to say, this defendant, remuneration for preparing an adaipet harness on ghose kriahnier's account, so that in 1901 after this patent had been applied for--we find krishnien going to madura to learn to work 'adaipet' and getting on adaipet harness prepared--a phrase which covers the plaintiffs invention ..... 1888 ') a defendant in an action for infringement is not allowed to set up by way of defence all the grounds on which the grant of the patent could be opposed, grounds which are to be found in section 20 of the act. one of those grounds is that invention was not a new invention. ..... , that it was not the proper subject matter for a patent; and accordingly, in many text books this matter is treated as distinct from the question whether the invention is new, whereas other text-book writers analysing ..... the defendant is not precluded from pleading that the alleged invention was not. the proper subject-matter of a patent, or that there was no subject, matter for the patent it is quite true that in english patent cases it has been the custom to plead, not only that the alleged invention was not new, but also ..... act of 1911. under that act, as in england, any of the statutory grounds for opposing the grant of the patent may be pleaded in answer to an action for an infringement of a patent. it was argued that, although this provision was not in force at the time that this suit was tried and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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