Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: delhi Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 164 results (0.039 seconds)

Apr 10 2002 (HC)

Pfizer Products Inc. Vs. B.L. and Company and ors.,

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-10-2002

Reported in : 2002(25)PTC262(Del)

..... to as the said pfizer inc., obtained an order of the commerce court of the canton of zurich dated 15th december,1999, re trademarks and patents, court's records no.h.f.990007. i state that pursuant to mutual discussion between the said pfizer inc. and the defendant herein a settlement ..... the analytical report: 5(e) disintegration test and 5(g) assay and toxicity test have been specifically mentioned. iv. schedule-v lays down standards for patent and proprietary medicines (definition of ready to use medicine is that which is not specified in indian pharmacopoeia or any other prescribed pharmacopoeia sec-3(h) ..... the product of the plaintiff. this suffix 'gra' was commonly used in naming drugs. in support it was submitted that searches conducted at the us patent and trade mark office for trade marks containing the suffix gra clearly establishes that number of drugs on the like register use this suffix e.g. panagra ..... the question of transborder or spill-over of international reputation, notwithstanding the fact that india is not a signatory to the paris convention and the patents law has not so far been amended in india after signing of gatt. in november 1993 the delhi high court restrained two local companies by ..... objection of the defendants that the case of the plaintiff is limited to claim for passing off and is not a case of alleged infringment of patent, copyright, design or trade mark nor any pleadings to this effect in the plaint or in the application under order xxxix rule 1 and 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2002 (HC)

Jaininder JaIn and ors. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-10-2002

Reported in : 2004(29)PTC160(Del)

..... 1 and 2 had put in appearance before learned single judge and in response to the notice issued in this appeal affidavit of mr. t.r. subramanian, controller general of patents, designs and trade marks was filed supported with documents. affidavit was also filed of shri amar prakash, assistant registrar trade marks, trade marks registry, mumbai. in the two affidavits, respondents ..... are the wives respectively of appellant no. 1 and respondents 3 and 4. respondent no. 1 is the registrar of trade marks. respondent no. 2 is the controller (general) of patents, designs and trade marks.3. the appellants have stated the background in which they claimed the reliefs saying that in the year 1959 appellant no. 2 established kangaro stationery industry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2002 (HC)

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-23-2002

Reported in : (2003)IILLJ575Del; 2003(3)SLJ405(Delhi)

..... bench decision of this court as also the supreme court of india.65. for the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that the writ petition and the letter patents appeal should be allowed and it must be held that the petitioners and the appellant are entitled to the benefit of the pension scheme. the retiral benefits payable to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2002 (HC)

National Industrial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-08-2002

Reported in : [2002]124TAXMAN413(Delhi)

..... '). the relevant portion of section 32(1) reads as under :'32 depreciation.(1) in respect of depreciation of(i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets;(ii) know-how patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1-4-1998,owned, wholly or partly, by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2002 (TRI)

Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-23-2002

Reported in : (2002)(81)ECC544

..... interpretative note to rule 9(1)(c) provides that the royalties and licence fees referred to in rule 9(1)(c) may include, among other things, payments in respect to patents, trademarks and copyrights. however, the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation shall not be added to the price actually paid or payable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2002 (TRI)

Ferodo India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-12-2002

Reported in : (2002)(82)ECC584

..... technical assistance and trade mark agreement between the two collaborators. without the licence and know how the goods can not be manufactured in india. without patent rights from the collaborator, the goods manufactured by the indian company cannot be marketed in india with the trade mark of the foreign collaborator. for ..... towards technical know how fees as well as the royalty for use of the licence for the sake of production and to use the trademark, patent, become related to the imported goods in question and also become conditions of sale for the import of the said goods. this view is ..... agreement, no transfer of know how, no payment for this transfer of know how fees and no payment of royalty and therefore, no use of patent, trademark etc. then there would have been no occasion to start the said know how related production and therefore, no question of import of capital ..... assistance and trade mark agreement between the two collaborators, without the licence and know how the goods cannot be manufactured in india. further, without patent rights from the collaborators, the goods manufactured by the indian company cannot be marketed in india with the collaborator, the goods manufactured by the indian ..... 9(1)(c) 1. the royalties and licence fees referred to in rule 9(1)(c) may include among other things, payments in respect to patents, trademarks and copyrights. however, the charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the country of importation shall not be added to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2002 (TRI)

Kwality Zipper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-08-2002

Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT296TriDel

..... ), all the properties, assets, work-in-progress, current assets, investments, powers, authorities, allotments, approvals and consents, licences, registrations, contracts, engagements, arrangements, rights, titles, interests, benefits and advantages of whatever nature, patents, trade marks, trade names, etc., stood vested in the transferee company i.e.appellant. all debts, liabilities, duties and obligations as per clause (f) of the scheme sanctioned by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 2002 (HC)

Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi Vs. Shyam Sunder Kohli

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-14-2002

Reported in : 100(2002)DLT558

..... under article 142 of the constitution of india, which power, this court does not possess. 15. in the aforementioned backdrop, the question which arises for consideration in these two letter patent appeals are:(i) whether the learned single judge erred in allowing the appeal on the ground of desertion on the part of the wife? and (ii) whether the learned single ..... s.b. sinha, c.j. 1. these two letter patent appeals arise out of a judgment and decree dated 8th september, 2000 passed by a learned single judge of this court in fao 501/99.the fact of the matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2002 (HC)

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. State of Ha ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-26-2002

Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)423; 97(2002)DLT377; 2002(62)DRJ284

s.b. sinha, c.j.1. these letter patent appeals having arisen out of a common judgment and involving similar question of law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2002 (HC)

Attar Kaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-08-2002

Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)200; 97(2002)DLT147; 2002(62)DRJ574

..... her grievance. the writ petition, however, was dismissed by the learned single judge. the appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge has filed the instant letters patent appeal.2. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. it may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition the dda filed a counter-affidavit in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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