Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1964 Page 9 of about 365 results (0.009 seconds)

Apr 21 1964 (HC)

Ramaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Venkatammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-21-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad193

s. ramachandra iyer, c.j. (1) this is an appeal under cl. 15 letters patent against the judgment of veeraswami j. who set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, which had reversed the decree for possession granted by the trial court in favour .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1964 (HC)

Manicka Gounder Vs. Arunachala Gounder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-24-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad1

..... , however, of the conflict of decisions in this court, the learned judge, if we may say so with respect, very properly granted a certificate under cl. 15 of the letters patent to enable the aggrieved party to file this appeal.(4) it was settled law before the act that a woman married to a member of a joint family became a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1964 (HC)

Ellappan Vs. T.R. Sitaramiah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-07-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad180; (1965)1MLJ224

s. ramachandra iyer, c.j. (1) this appeal is filed under cl. 15 of the letters patent against the judgment of veeraswami j. it arises out of a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the suit properties by one raghupati iyer, whose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1964 (HC)

N. Vaithilingam Chettiar Vs. S.N. Lakshmana Nadar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-15-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad331

s. ramachandra iyer, c.j. 1. this appeal has been filed against the judgment of kunhamed kutti j. on the strength of certificate issued under cl. 15 letters patent. the appeal arises out of a suit instituted to set aside a summary order in proceedings relating to the delivery of possession of property sold by an official receiver. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1964 (HC)

Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundareswarar Temple and anr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad355

..... long as they rendered service to the villagers. this view has been accepted on second appeal by venkataraman j. but the learned judge gave a certificate under cl. 15 letters patent for a further appeal. hence this appeal.(2) sri t.s. kuppuswami iyer, appearing for the appellants, first contended that as the lands were given to the ancestors of respondents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1964 (HC)

Motimul Sowcar Vs. Visalakshi Ammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad432; (1965)2MLJ371

..... would be entitled to work out of his remedies only against the right, title and interest of the husband, marudamuthu naicker. both parties have preferred the appeals, under the letters patent, which are now before us.(4) we might immediately set forth, quite tersely, the questions that now arise for our determination. firstly, there is the question whether, in second appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1964 (HC)

K.S. Subramania Iyer Vs. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-01-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad484; (1965)2MLJ140

(1) this letters patent appeal is from the judgment of ramakrishnan j. in a. s. 208 of 1960, and involves a point of some interest and importance regarding the scheme, and the application of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 1964 (FN)

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

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-08-1964

..... the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." the granting of patent monopolies under this constitutional authority represents a very minor exception to the nation's traditional policy of a competitive business economy, such as is safeguarded by the antitrust ..... therefore, that, to the majority who joined in mr. justice whittaker's opinion, the asserted distinction was simply irrelevant, since convertible, as the holder of a combination patent, could under no circumstances prevent others from making and supplying unpatented and unpatentable replacement parts for any element of the combination. the court's opinion by mr. justice whittaker ..... of the convertible automobile sold by the ford motor company that anyone selling ready-made replacement fabrics for these automobiles would be guilty of contributory infringement of said patent." thus, the court's interpretation of the knowledge requirement affords aro no defense with respect to replacement fabric sales made after january 2, 1954. it would ..... had no license during that period. respondent filed an infringement suit against petitioners, who, without a license, made and sold replacement fabrics to fit cars using the patented top structures. the patent owner (respondent's assignor) notified petitioners on january 2, 1954, that petitioners' sale of fabrics to fit ford tops would be contributory infringement. on july 21, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 1964 (FN)

Brulotte Vs. Thys Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-16-1964

..... must redraft its contracts to achieve the same economic results, the decision is not only wrong, but conspicuously ineffectual. i would affirm. [ footnote 2/1 ] installment of a patented, coin-operated washing machine in the basement of an apartment building without charge except that the landlord and his tenants must deposit 25 cents for every use, should not constitute ..... for above-minimum use, [ footnote 2/2 ] any such distinction of extended use payments and extended installments, even if accepted, would not justify eradicating all petitioners' obligations beyond the patent term, but only those based on use above the stated minimums; for the minimums, by themselves, being payable whether or not a machine has been used, are precisely identical in ..... " to a machine, the other petitioner, $3,300. [ footnote 2 ] all but one of the 12 expired prior to the expiration of the license agreements. the exception was a patent whose mechanism was not incorporated in these machines. [ footnote 3 ] petitioners purchased their machines from prior purchasers under transfer agreements to which respondent was a party. [ footnote 4 ] note 1 ..... of certiorari. 376 u. s. 905 . we conclude that the judgment below must be reversed insofar as it allows royalties to be collected which accrued after the last of the patents incorporated into the machines had expired. the constitution by art. i, 8 authorizes congress to secure "for limited times" to inventors "the exclusive right" to their discoveries. congress .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1964 (FN)

Sears, Roebuck and Co. Vs. Stiffel Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-09-1964

..... as to prevent others, by imitating such markings, from misleading purchasers as to the source of the goods. [ footnote 9 ] but because of the federal patent laws, a state may not, when the article is unpatented and uncopyrighted, prohibit the page 376 u. s. 233 copying of the article itself or ..... stiffel lamps had complained to stiffel on learning that sears was selling substantially identical lamps at a much lower price. the district court, after holding the patents, invalid for want of invention, went on to find as a fact that sears' lamp was "a substantially exact copy" of stiffel's, and ..... united states district court for the northern district of illinois, claiming in its first count that, by copying its design, sears had infringed stiffel's patents, and, in its second count, that, by selling copies of stiffel's lamp, sears had caused confusion in the trade as to the source of ..... for such copying, as such use of state law conflicts with the exclusive power of the federal government to grant patents only to true inventions, and then only for a limited time. an unpatented article, being in the public domain, may be freely copied, though ..... decided march 9, 1964 376 u.s. 225 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus respondent, whose design and mechanical patents are invalid for want of invention, cannot, under a state unfair competition law, obtain an injunction against copying its product or an award of damages .....

Tag this Judgment!


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