Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 290 results (0.030 seconds)

Mar 15 2013 (HC)

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2013

..... 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 30 2013 (HC)

F.Hoffmannla Roche Ltd Vs. Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-30-2013

..... 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

Decided on : Oct-29-2013

..... 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!

Jun 12 2013 (HC)

M.S.Padmanabhan Vs. S.Arumugam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-12-2013

..... .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!

Jun 26 2013 (HC)

Ags Entertainment Private Limited Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-26-2013

..... 65 (105)(zzzzt). therefore, the respondents may be justified in stating that when temporary transfer of other categories of intellectual property such as designs, patents and trademarks are liable to service tax, there is no justifiable reason to exclude copyright services from such category.99. re.contention aspect principle :- the ..... section 65 (12)(a)(i).98. it is to be stated permission to use and transferring temporarily or enjoy the intangible goods such as designs, patents and trademarks were subject matter of levy to service tax from 2004. though copyright is also once such intangible item, it was excluded from the ..... goods which are taxable at the rate of 4 per cent) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- sl. no.description of the goods commodity code number ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70. intangible goods like copyright, patent, rep licence 2070 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57. there have been several decisions of the hon'ble supreme court on the interpretation of the word goods in the context of ..... )(a) of the said act.2. introduction - service tax on copyrights: when service tax was levied on 'intellectual property services' namely trademarks, designs, patents or any other similar intangible property, with effect from 10.9.2004, copyright was specifically excluded from the definition of intellectual property rights (iprs). copyright is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 2013 (HC)

Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Vs. Indus Biotech Private Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-2013

..... international market or at any other point of purchase in the market in any manner the soluble double metal salt of hca in market in violation of the plaintiff process patent no.182810; vi) a permanent injunction restraining defendant, its men, assignees, transferees or agents or, retailers, dealers, or any person claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, ..... international market or at any other point of purchase in the market in any manner the soluble double metal salt of hca in market in violation of the plaintiff process patent no.182489; iv) a permanent injunction restraining defendant, its men, assignees, transferees or agents or, retailers, dealers, or any person claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, ..... in domestic and international market or at any other point of purchase in the market in any manner the anti obesity beverages in market in violation of the plaintiff process patent no.182488; iii) a permanent injunction restraining defendant, its men, assignees, transferees or agents or, retailers, dealers, or any person claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, marketing ..... domestic and international market or at any other point of purchase in the market in any manner the soluble double metal salt of hca in violation of the plaintiff process patent no.182487; ii) a permanent injunction restraining defendant, its men, assignees, transferees or agents or, retailers, dealers, or any person claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, marketing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 2013 (HC)

Ammini Karnan Vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-27-2013

..... the prayer that this hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of declaration declaring chapter xi of the trade marks act, 1999 and chapter xix of the patents act, 1979, as ultra vires articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50, 245 of the constitution of india as violative of the basic structure of the constitution and hence void .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 2013 (HC)

Shrishti Digital Solution Vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-05-2013

..... : dgft may, through a notification, adopt and enforce any measure necessary for: (a) protection of public morals; (b) protection of human, animal or plant life or health; (c) protection of patents, trademarks and copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices; (d) prevention of use of prison labour; (e) protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value; (f) conservation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2013 (HC)

T.Ekambaram Vs. Bhavani Sagari

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-10-2013

..... the question of jurisdiction, we have no hesitation to hold that the present suit is for land coming within the scope of clause 12 of the letters patent, and the spit properties being outside the jurisdiction of this court, the leave granted earlier was rightly revoked by the learned single judge. we do not ..... was that the suit for bare injunction cannot be said to be a suit pertaining to a land within the meaning of clause 12 of the letters patent of 1865 and in any event, for the relief of injunction sought for by the plaintiff, the defendants title or possession of land is not ..... limits for the time being declared and prescribed as the local limits of such jurisdiction.13. in pursuance of clause11 of the letters patent, the governor-in-council enacted the madras high court (jurisdictional limits) act, 1927. the preamble to the said act states: whereas clause 11 of the ..... letters patent for the high court of judicature at madras, dated the 28th december 1865, provides that the said high court shall have and exercise ordinary original ..... powers upon the british crown to establish high courts at calcutta, madras and bombay by issuing letters patent under the great seal of the united kingdom of great britain and ireland. accordingly, queen victoria issued a letters patent on 26.06.1862 establishing at madras for the presidency of madras, this high court of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2013 (HC)

Dr.Mrs.Rajam Sethuraman Vs. Maha Semam Trust

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-19-2013

..... of an order of injunction. moreover, i have already expressed my doubts about the maintainability of the suit without a prior leave under clause 12 of the letters patent, in so far as the first defendant is concerned. therefore, this application is also liable to be dismissed. accordingly, o.a.no.694 of 2012 is ..... court with clean hands. they have given a false address for the first defendant trust, with a view to avoid an application under clause 12 of the letters patent, at least in so far as the first defendant is concerned. therefore, such persons are not entitled to the relief of injunction. moreover, no injunction can ..... did not cover the first defendant. therefore, the above suit, as it stands today, is not maintainable for want of leave under clause 12 of the letters patent, as against the trust, for framing of a scheme for which alone the suit has been filed.36. it is not as though the plaintiffs are innocent third ..... not include the first defendant. a look at the judge's summons in support of a.no.42 of 2012 filed under clause 12 of the letters patent would show that the plaintiffs sought leave only insofar as the defendants 2 to 8, 18, 19 and 21 are concerned. this was on the ground ..... sethuraman and 2 others, filed two applications before this court viz., (i) a.no.42 of 2012 for leave to sue under clause 12 of the letters patent, inasmuch as some of the defendants were residing outside the jurisdiction of this court and (ii) a.no.123 of 2012 under section 92 of the code .....

Tag this Judgment!


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