Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1961 Page 1 of about 389 results (0.013 seconds)

Oct 13 1961 (HC)

Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Vendra Venkanna, Proprietor of Jai Bhara ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-13-1961

Reported in : AIR1963AP58

..... for the cement concrete of his make. the plaintiff-company was not entitled to any reliefs with regard to the alleged infringement of its patent as the patent had expired even before the filing of the suit. 12. it would appear that the plaintiff had given up the relief for accounts and ..... defendant) and its partners impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. the plaintiff claimed damages estimated at rs. 9,000/- for an alleged infringement of the patent. the other reliefs as claimed against the defendant in o.s. 53 of 1954 were also claimed against these defendants. 8. the defendants repudiated the ..... defendant-concern and sent his engineers and got the property and machinery valued. the plaintiff and its engineers never complained that the defendant had infringed the patent rights of the plaintiff. 7. the defendants in o.s. 54 of 1954 are the firm, sri radhakrishna reinforced cement pipe and ferro concrete works ..... pipes, had infringed the rights of the plaintiff by manufacturing and selling cement concrete pipes under the plaintiff's trade mark and name and using the patented machine and method for manufacturing the said cement pipes. 3. the defendant in o.s. no. 30 of 1954 is one vendra venkanna, proprietor ..... an alleged infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff in relation to cement concrete pipes manufactured and sold by the plaintiff and of the patent registered in relation to the said cement concrete pipes. 2. the plaintiff's case in brief is that it is a long standing manufacturer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1961 (HC)

Sarjudei Vs. Rampati Kunwari

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-14-1961

Reported in : AIR1962All503

..... equality before the law.9. we do not accept the argument of sri jagdish swamp that section 24 applies to miscellaneous suits such as those under the copyright act, the patents act and the divorce act and not to first appeals from decrees of civil judges. he could not point to any words in section 24 which would have the effect ..... order passed before the constitution came into force.7. a judgment in a first appeal passed by a judge of this court is appealable under clause 10 of the letters patent to a bench and the appeal will lie on questions of fact and law both. if the first appeal is transferred to a district judge and is disposed of by ..... competency of the transferee court. in sadar ali v. doliluddin : air1928cal640 and vasudeva samiar in re, air 1929 mad 381 (sb) it was held that the amendment in the letters patent which took away the absolute right of appeal to a division bench from a single judge's judgment and gave a right of appeal only with special leave of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1961 (HC)

Consolidated Foods Corporation Vs. Brandon and Company Private Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-26-1961

Reported in : AIR1965Bom35; (1964)66BOMLR612

..... section 4 of the merchandise marks act, 1887, the reference of trade marks 'protected by law' meant only such trade marks as by the provision of section 103 of the patents, designs and trade marks act, 1883, would have an existing right of priority for registration in the united kingdom., i.e., those marks in respect of which a period of ..... dealing with the question as to whether any new right of property was conferred by statute on the owner of a trade mark, asked (at p.593) 'where does the patents designs and trade marks act, 1883, confer any new right of property on the owner of a trade mark' and observed (at page 594)'the act is a statutory recognition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1961 (HC)

Juvan Sinhji Balusinhji and ors. Vs. Balbhadrasinhji Indrasinhji and o ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-23-1961

Reported in : AIR1963Guj209; (1962)3GLR715

..... to the true intent of the makers of the act, 'pro bono publico' '. this rule was reaffirmed by earl of halsbury in eastman photographic material co. v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks, (1898) ac 571 in the following words:-'my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 1961 (FN)

Jarecki Vs. G. D. Searle and Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-12-1961

..... income resulting from exploration, discovery, or prospecting, or any combination of the foregoing, extending over a period of more than 12 months; or" "(c) income from the sale of patents, formulae, or processes, or any combination of the foregoing developed over a period of more than 12 months; or" "(d) income includible in gross income for the taxable year rather ..... to limit the kinds of income eligible for relief. they say, however, that not all income from research and development was excluded. that which comes from inventions not merely patentable, but also sufficiently revolutionary to be called "genuine discoveries," is still within the protection of 456. we find it impossible to believe that an amendment designed to eliminate ..... classified six types of "abnormal income." among them was the following, at 721(a)(2)(c): "income resulting from exploration, discovery, prospecting, research, or development of tangible property, patents, formulae, or processes, or any combination of the foregoing, extending over a period of more than 12 months." this was the first time specific provision was made for income from ..... extending for more than 12 months, it produced two new drugs, "banthine," used in the treatment of peptic ulcers, and "dramamine," for relief from motion sickness. taxpayer received patents on both drugs, and it asserts that both were new products, and not merely improvements on preexisting compounds. taxpayer received income from the sale of "banthine" and "dramamine" in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1961 (FN)

Aro Mfg. Co., Inc. Vs. Convertible Top Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-27-1961

..... infringement suit against petitioners, which manufacture and sell replacement fabrics designed to fit the models of convertible automobiles equipped with tops embodying the combination covered by the patent. the patent covered only the combination of certain unpatented components and made no claim to invention based on the fabric or on its shape, pattern or design. held: ..... presented was whether petitioners' conduct constituted "making a permissible replacement of a part [the fabric] which expectedly became worn out or defective sooner than other parts of the patented combination," or whether such replacement constituted "a forbidden reconstruction of the combination." it then held that replacement of the fabric constituted reconstruction of the combination, and thus ..... these considerations, of themselves, suggest that the replacement was mere "repair" of the worn component, and not "reconstruction" page 365 u. s. 368 of the patented combination. surely they support the inference that all concerned knew that the fabric of the top would become weatherbeaten or unable to perform its protective function long before those ..... preexisting case law. the cases cited above amply demonstrate that there is no single yardstick for determining whether particular substitutions of new for original unpatented parts of a patented combination amount to permissible repair or forbidden reconstruction. the matter is to be resolved "on principles of common sense applied to the specific facts" of a given .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1961 (HC)

Punjab Soap Works Vs. Hindusthan Liver Ltd.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-31-1961

Reported in : AIR1962MP356; 1962MPLJ240

..... and, therefore, the order refusing tostay the suit under section 10 c. p. c. is a 'judgment' withinthe meaning of clause 15 letters patent. this case isthus distinguishable on the ground that the orders inthat case went to the root of the suit and decided amatter of controversy between ..... cannot be taken into account in determining whether an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction is a 'judgment' appealable under clause 10 of the letters patent. here it may be pointed out that the statement of shrlvastava j. in the allahabad case that in manohar's case, ilr (1952) nag 471 ..... observation supporting the view that an order granting or refusing an interim injunction is a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 10 of the letters patent.the supreme court expressly refrained from framing an exhaustive definition of the word 'judgment.' that being so, the fact that the supreme court pointedly referred ..... court and the privy council. hidayatullah j. (as he then was) expressed his view about the term judgment' as used in the letters patent thus-'a judgment means a decision in an action whether final, preliminary or interlocutory which decides either wholly or partially, but conclusively in so far ..... raised by the respondent must be upheld. the question whether the order of the learned single judge is appealable under clause 10 of the letters patent depends on whether it is a 'judgment1 within the meaning of that clause. various high courts have considered, and expressed divergent views on, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 1961 (FN)

Pan American Petroleum Corp. Vs. Superior Court

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-29-1961

..... . the former arises when the plaintiff in his opening pleading page 366 u. s. 665 -- be it a bill, complaint or declaration -- sets up a right under the patent laws as ground for a recovery. of such, the state courts have no jurisdiction. the latter may appear in the plea or answer or in the testimony. the determination of ..... state courts of the power to determine questions arising under the patent laws, but only of assuming jurisdiction of ' cases ' arising under those laws. there is a clear distinction between a case and a question arising under the ..... . suit was brought in a state court on a common law contract claim. the complaint contained no mention of a patent, but the invalidity of certain patents was set up in defense. in response to the argument that this deprived the state courts of jurisdiction, the court said: "section 711 [the jurisdictional provision] does not deprive the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1961 (HC)

Nekumar K. Porwal Vs. Mohanlal Hargovindas

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-19-1961

Reported in : AIR1963Bom246; (1962)64BOMLR616

..... . baptista in answer to this contention handed in a copy of an office order no. 62 (1959 series) which is shown to have been passed by the controller-general of patents, designs and trade marks under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the act authorising among others the deputy registrar of trade marks to discharge the respective functions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1961 (HC)

Devi Dayal Marwah Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-06-1961

Reported in : AIR1963AP479

..... the business of the hyderabad potteries and to carry on the business of manufacturers, buyers and dealers in all kinds of clay work, chemical preparations and glazes whatsoever and obtain patents for them to carry out the other objects as set forth in the memorandum of association. on the 1st october, 1947, the company executed a deed of mortgage in favour .....

Tag this Judgment!

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