Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 5,026 results (0.016 seconds)

Oct 14 2016 (HC)

Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Crag Martin Distillery Private Limited

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... under the indian companies act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy and other alcoholic beverages. the plaintiff had applied to the controller general of patents, designs and trademarks, for registration of a design for their bottle. the same was granted on 11.08.2000, as design no. 183202 dated 11.08.2000, which is a ..... provisions of section 15(1)(a)(b) of the act of 2000, in as much as it is not shown that the plaintiff have furnished to the controller of the patents and designs in the prescribed form under the provisions of the act of 2000, the specimen of the design and the bottle is not being marked/embossed with the prescribed ..... continues under the act of 2000. it is submitted that under section 20 of the act of 2000, the provisions of chapter xvii of the patents act, 1970, apply to the registered design, as they apply to patents. thus, the plaintiff is entitled to bring an action for infringement of the copy right of the design. it is submitted that, it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2016 (HC)

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. and Another Vs. Entertainment ...

Court : Mumbai

..... of the copyright act, 1957, the impugned award is in conflict with the public policy of india and is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator. the impugned award shows patent illegality in so far as the adjudication of the claims made in respect of various declarations sought pertaining to the copyright and the finding of the learned arbitrator that the ..... assessment of the rateable value of land, a divorce decree, a winding-up order...." 120. supreme court in the case of vikas sales corporation and anr. (supra) has held that patents, copyrights and other rights in rem which are not rights over land are also included within the meaning of movable property. 121. delhi high court in the case of mundipharma ..... supreme court in the case of vikas sales corporation and anr. (supra) in which, it has been held by the supreme court that the right in rem includes right in patent and copyright. similar view has also been taken by the supreme court in the case of common cause, a registered society (supra). it is submitted that the right in rem ..... of india and ors., reported in (1999) 6 scc 667 and in particular paragraph 84. it is submitted that the judgment on a patent, trade mark or copyright is a judgment in rem which includes infringement of a patent or trademark or copyright etc. he submits that infringement of right is jus in rem. if copyright in rem is violated, remedy against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2016 (HC)

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. THE UNION OF ...

Court : Mumbai

..... 1994 are set out below. 65. definitions. in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, (55a) intellectual property right means any right to intangible property, namely, trade marks, designs, patents or any other similar intangible property, under any law for the time being in force, but does not include copyright; (55b) intellectual property service means, (a) transferring, temporarily; or ( ..... the bollard technology; monsanto india s and its parents patents, copyright, marks and other intellectual property rights are preserved intact, unaffected by the sub-licensing. but the identified technology, the one infused in the fifty seeds given to the ..... engaged in licensing the bg i technology, but this did not come under the ambit of intellectual property services because it was not patented. monsanto india, in 2007, started to license the technology in bg ii, which, being patented, required it to remit service tax. monsanto india has been paying service tax since 2007. 19. monsanto india submits that while ..... sale or a deemed sale and it is in respect of not the medium or the intellectual property (the marks, copyright, patents, etc), but is the transfer of the right to use that software subject to those marks, patents, copyright, etc. monsanto india s case is no different. its sub-licensee do not acquire any proprietory intellectual property rights over .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 2016 (HC)

CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. Serji Transformer Explosion Prev ...

Court : Mumbai

..... on account of submission of drawings. appellant has further undertaken that the drawings to be submitted to dtl shall be in accordance with its patent i.e patent no. 189089. it is thus clear that if the appellant fails to submit the drawings, every day s delay would add to the ..... not disposed of by learned single judge, the appellant (defendant in the suit) will continue manufacture and sale of its products as per its patent but without infringing the patent of respondent no.1 - plaintiff of the suit, in accordance with the undertaking already given by it before learned single judge on 15th ..... by rrvpnl and also by bharat petroleum corporation ltd ( bpcl ). both ctr and sergi seem to have agreed that they would each submit their respective patents, designs and drawings in relation to these tenders. the later order of 28th november 2011 extended the 15th november 2011 to dtl as well. (v ..... are the only two competitors in their field, evidently one that has a narrowly targeted, niche market. sergi has consistently denied infringement of ctr s patent; true, i have found otherwise in ctr s principal motion for injunction (the so-called final order of 23rd october 2015), but sergi is in ..... all are filed by the plaintiff ( ctr ), alleging that the defendant ( sergi ) is in repeated and contumacious breach of restraint orders passed in ctr s patent infringement suit. this common judgment disposes of all four notices of motion. 2. i heard mr. seervai for ctr and mr. chagla for sergi at some length .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2016 (HC)

Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi and Another Vs. Chandrakant P. Sanghvi an ...

Court : Mumbai

..... the mandatory effect of section 42, in our view is also important factor while deciding and/or before granting leave under clause 12 of the letter patent act. the objection, therefore, so raised and the impugned order so passed, based upon the facts and circumstances, therefore, in our view, there ..... issue about the venue and/or seat. there was no issue of jurisdiction raised at the earliest, though leave under section xii of the letters patent act was granted. in that case several orders were passed by the high court about the arbitration proceedings and ultimately the proceedings culminated into the ..... cases falling within the jurisdiction of the small cause court at bombay, or the bombay city civil court. *amended by the bombay high court letters patents (amendment) act, xli of 1948. pleadings and contents of clause xii leave application and section 9 arbitration petition:- 12. the averments made for leave ..... not apply to the high court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, namely, sections 16, 17 and 20. the bombay high court (letters patent) act, 1866:13/ *12. original jurisdiction as to suits.- and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at bombay, in ..... orders have attained finality. 8. on 31 july 2013, after the common judgment so referred above, a leave under clause xii of the letters patent act was granted by the single judge on the application of aps group, to file proposed section 9 application. the application/petition was filed accordingly. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2015 (HC)

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. and Ot ...

Court : Mumbai

..... annexure -1 part g; (iii) goodwill of the said business; and (iv) business information held by the transferor which in any way relate to the business, if any (v) all patents, designs (registered or unregistered). copyrights, technical information used in respect of the business, including drawings, sketches and blue prints, designs, product manuals, specifications, data, processes, operation sheets, quality control and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2015 (HC)

Central India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Union of India, throug ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... are primarily involved in running of the hospital. indirectly, the authority while passing impugned order sat in appeal over the recognition granted, ph.d.s awarded by the universities and patents duly registered on the strength of such research work. 26. in paragraph no.6.5 query about separate research cadre in various departments for undertaking research activities has been raised ..... they are registered for ph.d. with above mentioned deemed university under a guide duly recognized for that purpose. the patent office of government of india has issued patent no.221910 dated 29.01.2004, patent no.219414 dated 22.03.2006 and patent no.2214547 dated 08.03.2006 to petitioner institute or to dr. lokendra singh, who is one of its medical ..... already obtained ph.d. degrees on the basis of research work conducted by them at the petitioner institute. it also has 4 registered patents in medicine issued by the office of the controller of patents designs and trade marks under patent and designs act. 6. it was granted approval by respondent no.1 under section 35[1] [ii] of the 1961 act, and ..... officers. these patents are in relation to the new inventions carried out in petitioner institution. document at annexure-p15 is also pressed into service to show the research projects already undertaken and in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2015 (HC)

CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited Vs. SERGI Transformer Explosion P ...

Court : Mumbai

..... lj, borrowing quite openly from doctrines of statutory interpretation, advocated a purposive approach to construction. that now-legendary passage is still worth reproducing: my lords, a patent specification is a unilateral statement by the patentee, in words of his own choosing, addressed to those likely to have a practical interest in the subject matter of his ..... the transformer. the pressure system thereafter operates the fire extinguishing system. (emphasis added) specifically, mr. subramanian took the line that although all the integers in ctr s patent taken individually were known to the prior art, no previous system or device used them in this unique combination array. the earlier systems operated to disconnect power supply to ..... favoured by patents offices worldwide, rears its head throughout these papers. canada s intellectual property office as a general rule does not seem to allow the use of this expression, but ..... defendant, a manufacturer of electrical transformers, is a purchaser of the systems manufactured by either ctr or sergi. (but not ctr and/or ? sergi. this being a patent case, that linguistic abomination, one increasingly condemned in judgments everywhere and by scholars of both law and language (most notably bryan garner) as introducing needless ambiguity, and still much .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2015 (HC)

Inception Media LLP Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Mumbai

..... only of copyright having been applied for and granted. the process involved in copyright registration is, as dr. tulzapurkar correctly points out, very different from that required for sealing of patents. indeed, this is as it must be, for although the registrar may make such enquiry as he thinks fit under section 45(2), this enquiry is discretionary. the purpose of ..... portion was and is missing in this so-called final set of written submissions. in these, the plaintiff insists that no copy was ever given to the plaintiff. this is patently untrue. the so-called final written submissions are, thus, unfair to the defendants, to the court and most of all to mr. daver, whose conduct of his case has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2015 (HC)

Inception Media LLP Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Mumbai

..... only of copyright having been applied for and granted. the process involved in copyright registration is, as dr. tulzapurkar correctly points out, very different from that required for sealing of patents. indeed, this is as it must be, for although the registrar may make such enquiry as he thinks fit under section 45(2), this enquiry is discretionary. the purpose of ..... portion was and is missing in this so-called final set of written submissions. in these, the plaintiff insists that no copy was ever given to the plaintiff. this is patently untrue. the so-called final written submissions are, thus, unfair to the defendants, to the court and most of all to mr. daver, whose conduct of his case has been .....

Tag this Judgment!


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