Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: monopolies and restrictive trade practices commission mrtpc Page 1 of about 21 results (0.032 seconds)

Aug 11 1994 (TRI)

Director-general of Vs. Deepak Fertilizers and

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1994)81CompCas341NULL

..... right or title. accordingly choses in action included debts, benefits of contract, damages for breach of contract or tort, also stock, shares and debentures and even such incorporeal rights as patents, copyrights and trademarks." 10. analysing the concept and characteristics of debentures ramaiya on company law and procedures (twelfth edition) commented at page 29 that a debenture is a chose in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 1975 (TRI)

Registrar of Restrictive Trade Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1976)46CompCas470NULL

..... any method, machinery or process in the manufacture of goods is per se restriction and instances are not unknown where manufacturers of goods by obsolete process have bought out new patents and put them into disuse so that their own machinery may not become obsolete. this definitely eliminates competition from a newer and better method, machinery or process of manufacture and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1987 (TRI)

Director-general of Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1989)66CompCas51NULL

..... price ". we, however, think that the system does not need the crutches of such restrictions.79. the protection afforded by clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 38 is patently not available to the respondent as far as the tying arrangements are concerned. we have already seen that the respondent enjoys a monopolistic position in the production of toilet soaps ..... , was held to violate section 1 of the sherman act. the court said that power to appreciably restrain competition is " presumed when the tying product is patented or copyrighted " and when there is no patent or copyright power can be shown by evidence of " the tying product's desirability to consumers or from uniqueness in its attributes." in partner enterprise inc. v .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1977 (TRI)

In Re: Sarabhai M. Chemicals P.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1979)49CompCas887NULL

..... in paragraph 1 of the reply 2. whether an individual restriction imposed on an individual manu-fraturer in connection with or as a condition of an agreement setting or assigning patent know-how or similar rights can constitute a restrictive trade practice in law in view of the submissions contained in the amended reply 3. whether clause 9 of the agreement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1987 (TRI)

Director-general of Vs. M.S. Resorts Limited

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1987)62CompCas592NULL

..... -c(1)), " the rental varies from 10% to 14% depending upon the season and the size of the apartment ". in this context, the estimate of return at 14% to 35% patently is not correct.15. in view of what has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, we hold that prima facie the respondent has made false and misleading statements in its .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1985 (TRI)

In Re: Council of Traders

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1987)62CompCas333NULL

..... considered reasonable under the balancing clause. the boycott represents an attempt to deny the consumers certain products to which they are used and, therefore, the hardship to such consumers is patent.the fourth issue is, therefore, decided against respondents nos. 3 and 25. having come to the conclusion that respondents nos. 3 and 14 have indulged in the restrictive trade practice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1987 (TRI)

Director-general of Vs. Travancore Finance and Exchange

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1989)65CompCas518NULL

..... evasive reply, the director-general has rightly concluded that respondent has no worthwhile information to furnish and its offer of high rates is incredible. the creditworthiness of the respondent is patently dubious and the rates of interest advertised are obviously intended as an attractive bait to lure the prospective investors.8. we also find that there is no substance in the ..... into complacency about the risk involved in parting with his savings and placing the same at the disposal of the respondent.12. having found the claims made by the respondent patently misleading and based on shaky promises, we are inclined to the view that loss or injury to those who deposit money with the respondent is equally ..... patent. in all probability, they will not get interest at the promised rates and their hopes of getting back deposits on maturity are bound to be dashed. in this context, therefore, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1988 (TRI)

Director-general of Vs. Mrs. Kamlesh Thaper

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1988)64CompCas109NULL

..... the advertisement which appeared in the hindustan times. that means that she is unable to give particulars of the method and that, therefore, her ignorance in that respect is clearly patent. it is further admitted in her reply to the letter dated february 11, 1988, of the director-general that she never had any facility available in her institute in respect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1987 (TRI)

In Re: Mangalore Bankers and

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... rs. 58,500. there is no knowing whether they will receive the promised rates of interest and whether their deposits are secured. the loss or injury to such investors is patent considering that the respondent has not yet even started its business ventures. in this context, therefore, prima facie the respondent has indulged in an unfair trade practice in the form .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1993 (TRI)

Consumer Education and Research Vs. British Physical Laboratories

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

..... -existent consumer body who could not have spent such a big amount to release an advertisement in support of video-con. thus videocon cannot escape from the consequences of a patently disparaging advertisement put out by respondent no. 4. hence it is suggested that the hon'ble commission may institute enquiry proceedings against respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 4 under .....

Tag this Judgment!


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