Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 58 results (0.035 seconds)

Apr 28 2004 (HC)

Novartis AG, rep. by It's Power of Attorney Ms. Ritushka Negi and Anr. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-28-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)CTC95; 2004(29)PTC108(Mad)

..... as good as the first plaintiff himself applying for the same and getting it. reading of section 24b(1) of the act only contemplates the applicant, who had filed the patent claim, receiving the marketing approval. inasmuch as, the provisions contained in the drug and cosmetic rules enables the manufacturer's agent to apply for marketing approval, which provision stands modified ..... person in the application for marketing approval in the convention country. therefore, it depends upon the law prevailing in australia, on the issue namely? whether the applicant for the patent claim in the convention country should be the applicant in the application for marketing approval, no provision of law requiring the same is brought to the notice of this court ..... marketing approval in his name. but in this case, the marketing approval is given in the name of the second plaintiff.(c) the substance in the patent application in india; in the patent application and the patent grant in the convention country; in the marketing approval granted in the convention country; in the marketing approval granted by the central government and in the ..... therefore each of the plaintiff should be treated as a separate legal entity and not as a single economic unit. as already stated, the substance in the patent application in india; the patent application and the patent granted in the convention country; the marketing approval given in india and the application for granting the 'emr' in india is not identical. no tests .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2004 (HC)

S.P.S. Jayam and Co. Vs. the Registrar, Tamilnadu Taxation Special Tri ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-01-2004

Reported in : (2004)3MLJ74; [2004]137STC117(Mad)

..... , 1977), the court observed as under:-' this definition also shows that the expression signifies 'things and rights considered as having a money value'. even incorporeal rights like trade marks, copyrights, patents or rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts, are also included in its ambit.' the court, in the later part of the said judgment, again observed ..... as follows:- ' similarly, patents, copyrights and other rights in rem which are not rights over land are also included within the meaning of movable property.' c. volume 112 stc 370 (commissioner of sales tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2004 (HC)

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

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-20-2004

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!

Aug 18 2004 (HC)

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

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-18-2004

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!

Apr 20 2004 (HC)

The Rajarathna Mills Ltd., A. Kalayamputhur Vs. the Commercial Tax Off ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)3MLJ425

..... to transfer or succession, and to their capacity of being injured. property includes not only ownership, estates, and interests in corporeal things, but also rights such as trade marks, copyrights, patents, and rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts.' 13. in ahmed g.h. ariff and others v. commissioner of wealth-tax, calcutta, : [1970]76itr471(sc) , the ..... 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, copy-rights, patents and even rights in personam capable of transfer of 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 18 2004 (HC)

Techmo Car Spa Vs. the Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. Represented by It ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR284(Madras); IV(2004)BC101; [2005]123CompCas533(Mad); 2004(3)CTC754; [2004]54SCL100(Mad)

..... with such discretion, for which the learned senior counsel for the malco relied on a decision in wander ltd., and another v. astox india (p) ltd., reported in 1991 the patents and trade marks cases 1:- (para 13)'13. the appeals before the division bench were against the exercise of discretion by the single judge. in such appeals, the appellate court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2004 (HC)

K.R. Srinath Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)190CTR(Mad)517; [2004]268ITR436(Mad)

..... 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, copy-rights, 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 24 2004 (HC)

Karaikal Municipality by the Commissioner Vs. Nabissa Ummal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-24-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR280(Madras); 2004(2)CTC334; (2004)2MLJ554

..... of the judgment. some cases, a reference of which has been made earlier relate to the question of maintainability of a second appeal in letters patent against the appellate order passed under section 39(1) of the arbitration act as in the case of mohindra supply company (supra) where the bench ..... the right of appeal within strict limits defined by section 39'. therefore, so far the second part is concerned, namely, the maintainability of the appeal under letters patent it stands concluded by this decision. '7. again, in the recent judgment of the apex court in union of india v. aradhana trading co. : ..... under section 39(2) against a decision given by a learned single judge under section 39(1). in respect of the jurisdiction under letters patent the court observed that since arbitration act was a consolidating and amending act relating to arbitration it must be construed without any assumption that it ..... right to appeal except in the cases specified, from one judge of the high court to a division bench is expressly granted. but the letters patent are declared by cl.37 subject to the legislative power of the governor-general in council and also of the governor-in-council under the ..... dealt with under sub section (1). now, the question is whether such a prohibition will apply even to the appeals under clause 15 of the letters patent. 4. originally, in radhakrishnamurthy v. ethirajulu chetty & co. air 1945 mad 184, a division bench of this court held that the arbitration act, being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2004 (HC)

M. Radheshyamlal Vs. Shailesh

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-22-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Mad93; 2004(5)CTC401; (2004)4MLJ535

..... held that there is no inconsistency between section 104 read with order 43 rule 1 of the cpc and the appeals under the letters patent. the letters patent do not exclude or override the application of section 104 read with order 43 rule 1 cpc to internal appeals within the high court. ..... valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned, and that the right conferred under clause 15 of the letters patent cannot be exercised as a mere discretion or routine exercise of power.9.6. we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that these appeals ..... rendered good and the suit proceeded ahead for being tried on merits. such an order does not amount to 'judgment' within the meaning of letters patent.'9.4. it is, therefore, clear that unless and otherwise the interlocutory order decides the valuable right of the parties, no appeal is maintainable ..... 15 of the letters patent9.2. mr. samir, learned counsel for the appellant to sustain these appeals, referred to clause 15 of the letters patent, which reads as follows:'15. appeal from the courts of original jurisdiction to the high court in its appellate jurisdiction.-and we do further ordain ..... devram kini & ors., 2004-2-lw 366.4. per contra, mr. samir, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, referring to clause 15 of the letters patent, contends that the appeals are maintainable.5. we have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.6. from the above rival contentions, the following vital .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 29 2004 (HC)

Signals and Systems (i) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director T.S. Mani Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-29-2004

Reported in : [2005]128CompCas587(Mad)

..... to acquit the accused/respondent herein from the charges and set her at liberty. this court is not able to see any serious flaw or legal infirmity or inconsistency or patent error or perversity in approach by the learned magistrate below. therefore, the interference of this court sought to be made in the above revision case does not merit acceptance and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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