Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1964 Page 10 of about 365 results (0.032 seconds)

Apr 20 1964 (FN)

Simpson Vs. Union Oil Co. of California

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-20-1964

..... relate to a wholly separate second issue involved in that case -- the validity of a license granted by general electric to westinghouse, under the patents owned by the former, to manufacture and sell lamps at prices fixed by the patentee licensor -- and have no relevance whatsoever to the issue ..... s. 488 . in addition to the unambiguous statement in chief justice taft's opinion for a unanimous court that "[t]he owner of an article, patented or otherwise, is not violating the common law or the anti-trust act by seeking to dispose of his articles directly to the consumer and fixing the ..... [ footnote 9 ] reliance is placed on united states v. general electric co., 272 u. s. 476 , where a consignment arrangement was utilized to market patented articles. union oil correctly argues that the consignment in that case somewhat page 377 u. s. 23 parallels the one in the instant case. [ footnote 10 ..... consigned were patented. page 377 u. s. 29 possession of patent rights on the article allegedly consigned has no legal significance to an inquiry directed to ascertaining whether the burdens, risks, ..... miles medical co. v. john d. park & sons co., 220 u. s. 373 , regardless of whether or not the article sold was patented. similarly, if the agreement created a bona fide agency, the consignment would be valid under the antitrust laws, again regardless of whether or not the article .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 1964 (FN)

Wilbur-ellis Co. Vs. Kuther

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-08-1964

..... characteristics of size, location, shape and construction page 377 u. s. 425 of the six elements in question patented. petitioners, in adapting the old machines to a related use, were doing more than repair in the customary sense; but what they did was kin to ..... co., 365 u. s. 336 , which a majority of the court construe as holding that it was not infringement to replace the worn-out fabric of a patented convertible automobile top, whose original manufacture and sale had been licensed by the patentee. see no. 75, aro mfg. co. v. convertible top replacement co., ..... -ellis retained petitioner leuschner to put the machines in condition so they would operate and to resize six of the 35 elements that made up the patented combination. the resizing was for the purpose of enabling the machines to pack fish into "5-ounce" cans: 2 1/8 inches in diameter ..... decided june 8, 1964 377 u.s. 422 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit syllabus respondent, who owned a combination patent covering a canning machine, authorized the sale of machines made thereunder designed to pack fish into "1-pound" cans. petitioner company bought four of these ..... that they were "repaired," not "reconstructed," within the meaning of the cases. when six of the 35 elements of the combination patent were resized or relocated, no invasion of the patent resulted, for, as we have said, the size of cans serviced by the machine was no part of the invention; nor were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1964 (FN)

Compco Corp. Vs. Day-brite Lighting, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-09-1964

..... for which compco was sought to be held liable were those of the predecessor company, mitchell. [ footnote 2 ] the court of appeals also affirmed the holding that the design patent was invalid. no review of this ruling is sought here. [ footnote 3 ] as stated in sears, roebuck & co. v. stiffel co., ante, p. 376 ..... was "the same, to the eye of the ordinary observer, as the overall appearance" of day-brite's reflector, which embodied the design of the invalidated patent; that the appearance of day-brite's design had "the capacity to identify [day-brite] in the trade, and does in fact so identify [it] ..... by doing this, compco had unfairly competed with day-brite. the complaint prayed for both an accounting and an injunction. the district court held the design patent invalid, but, as to the second count, while the court did not find that compco had engaged in any deceptive or fraudulent practices, it did ..... fixtures very similar to day-brite's. this action was then brought by day-brite. one count alleged that compco had infringed day-brite's design patent; a second count charged that the public and the trade had come to associate this particular design with day-brite, that compco had copied day-brite ..... 1964 376 u.s. 234 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus design which is not entitled to design patent may be copied at will even though it identifies maker to trade, and injunction against such copying or an accounting for damages for copying is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 1964 (HC)

Royal Nepal Airline Corporation and anr. Vs. Monorama Meher Singh Legh ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-11-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Cal319,69CWN767

..... state had waived its right of immunity by entering an unconditional appearance and by filing an application for revocation of leave under clause 12 of the letters patent wherein the above preliminary points were also put forward. this judgment was upset in appeal. after examining the group of sections86-87 etc. lahiri c ..... a decision which touches the very foundation of the controversy between the parties amounting to a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. 131. in my opinion, the plea that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of consent of the central government to its institution under ..... for the appellant the first appeal was not incompetent on the ground that there was no judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent of this court nor was there any question of waiver. there being no provision in the code of civil procedure for entering a conditional appearance and ..... are disposed to uphold this objection on the ground that such an order is not a judgment within the meaning of section 15 of the letters patent.'then after referring to some authorities the order concluded with the following words: 'we refer to a full bench the question whether an appeal lies ..... of the principles enunciated in the various cases cited, the order of mallick, j. is a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. it appears to me that this question whether the order of mallick, j. dated the 26th may 1964 is appealable or not is not free from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1964 (HC)

Salubai Ramchandra Vs. Chandu Sadhu

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-17-1964

Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR69; 1965MhLJ203

..... which is heard by a single judge, there being a different right of appeal with regard to single judge decisions under clause 10 of the letters patent. if it is conceded that no party has a vested right to be heard by two or more judges in the high court it follows as ..... power given under section 108 of the government of india act, 1915, is preserved by reference to the said section in clause 36 of the letters patent and has been kept alive and re-affirmed by the government of india act of 1935 and by the constitution of india. under section 108, the high ..... and matrimonial jurisdiction respectively. it may he pointed out that reference to section 108 of the government of india act, 1915, in clause 36 of the letters patent was because the act of 1861 was repealed by the government of india act, 1915, and the latter act provided for the matters, which were contained in ..... 24 & 25 victoria, chapter 104, passed on august 6, 1861, provided by section 1 thereof for the establishment of the high courts by grant of letters patent at calcutta, madras and bombay. under section 13 of the said act, it was provided that the high court established under the act may by its own ..... the administration of justice, including power to make rules for regulating the practice of the court, as were vested in them by letters patent, and, subject to the provisions of any such letters patent, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were vested in the courts at the commencement of the act. section 108, sub- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1964 (HC)

Manmohan Singh Vs. Mst. Surjeet Kaur

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Nov-27-1964

Reported in : 1965CriLJ211

..... before the panchayati adalats, the panchayati adalats cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to be a court either within the meaning of the letters patent or within the meaning of section 104 of the state cons- station.6. for these reasons, therefore, we are satisfied that the present application before ..... case or appeal from any court to any other court of equal or superior jurisdiction' clearly indicate that the courts contemplated by clause 18 of the letters patent are only those courts which are subordinate to the high court. further-more under section 2 (a) of the jammu and kashmir village panchayat act, ..... panchayat act against the background of these facts, it is difficult to hold that this court has power to transfer cases under the letters patent only. the letters patent contemplates only transfer of cases of such courts which under the law of the land are subordinate to the high court, and that is ..... to the jurisdiction of some officer or would appear that the language of this clause is almost similar to clause 22 of the letters patent of the allahabad high court. it is manifest that under the jammu and kashmir village panchayat act, the panchayati adalats are in no way subordinate ..... contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if section 26 did not apply this court had powers under clause 18 of the letters patent to transfer a case from one panchayati adalat to another. a similar argument was pot forward in sat narain v. sarju reported as a i .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 1964 (HC)

In Re: Standard General Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-15-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Cal16

..... ground that it was just and equitable to wind up the company. jessel, m. r., held that the memorandum was simply to buy the german patent and to work it with or without improvements. the grounds for the decision in this case was that the substratum of the company was gone and therefore it should be ..... company was formed. the object for which the company was formed was for working a german patent for manufacturing coffee from dates. this patent was never granted, but the company purchased a swedish patent and also established works in hamburgh where they made and sold coffee without a patent. it was in these circumstances that an order for winding up was made on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1964 (HC)

Parry's (Calcutta) Employee's Union Vs. Parry and Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-23-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Cal31,(1966)ILLJ535Cal

..... assumed that the so-called reorganisation was confined only to calcutta. the supreme court pointed out that it was really surprising that such a patently erroneous assumption should have been made by the labour court in view of the evidence adduced before it and it was thus quite clear that ..... proceedings, as for example, when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. in other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. 45. the same principle has been reiterated by the supreme court in ..... then this court should not interfere with the findings. in my opinion, this contention is much too wide for acceptance. if the findings are patently wrong, this court has jurisdiction to interfere with the findings.'38. the learned judge then dealt with the finding of the tribunal as to whether ..... company and also of east indian distilleries and factories ltd., an allied concern of the petitioner company. in so doing the tribunal fell into a patent error.'31. then the learned judge proceeded to consider the question whether the respondent company had taken the decision to retrench not on commercial considerations ..... management function by questioning the propriety of the reorganisation and (ii) that in drawing its conclusions the tribunal started with wrong premises and fell into patent errors. 28. in support of this contention the learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decision of the supreme court in the case of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1964 (FN)

United States Vs. Penn-olIn Chemical Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-22-1964

..... co., 332 u. s. 319 , [ footnote 2/3 ] a sherman act violation resulted from a division of world markets for titanium pigments, the key being allocation of territories through patent license agreements. a similar arrangement was struck down in timken roller bearing co. v. united states, 341 u. s. 593 , where world trade territories were allocated among an american, a ..... inclination, resources and know-how to enter this market; both parent corporations of penn-olin had great resources; each had long been identified with the industry, one owning valuable patent rights while the other had engaged in sodium chlorate production for years; each had other chemicals the production of which required the use of sodium chlorate; right up to the ..... the sodium chlorate industry, and little effort had been made by existing companies to expand their facilities prior to 1957. in 1953, olin had made available to pennsalt its mathieson patented process for bleaching pulp with chlorine dioxide, and the latter had installed it 100% in all of the western paper mills. this process uses sodium chlorate. at about the ..... chemical for internal consumption, and has acted as sales agent for pennsalt in the southeastern territory under contracts dated in december, 1957, and february, 1958. olin also owns a patented process for bleaching pulp with chlorine dioxide. this process requires sodium chlorate, and has been widely used by paper manufacturers under royalty-free licenses. in addition, the record shows that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1964 (HC)

Rajkunvarba Wd/O. Jadeja Pratapsinhji Khanji Vs. Randhirsinhji Kalyans ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-06-1964

Reported in : (1964)5GLR907

..... considered the effect of section 52 and other relevant sections of the reorganisation act of 1956 having a bearing on the construction of section 52 in a group of letters patent appeals from saurashtra the judgment in which has been delivered just before the commencement of this judgment. amritlal gokaldas mehta v. state of bombay 1964 v.g.l.r. 769 ..... high court. that appeal was dismissed on 27th august 1958. prom that appellate decree plaintiff preferred an appeal to the same high court of bombay which was numbered as letters patent appeal no. 28 of 1959. that appeal was admitted by a division bench of that high court on the 27th of april 1959 whilst this appeal was pending on the ..... and a new high court of gujarat was created. under the provisions of the same bombay reorganisation act the letters patent appeal no. 28 of 1959 was transferred to this court for disposal according to law it was numbered as letters patent appeal no. 14 of 1960 when if was transferred to this court. mr. mankad as already stated contends that no .....

Tag this Judgment!

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