Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1984 Page 1 of about 518 results (0.009 seconds)

Jul 26 1984 (HC)

Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-26-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Cal334

..... application, inasmuch as all the points raised by the petitioner could also be gone into and decided by the controller at the time of final hearing. undoubtedly the controller of patents and designs have powers, similar to the powers given under the civil procedure code, to issue subpoena to witnesses on the application of the parties. but it is the discretionary power ..... of all prayed for leave being granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the said himangshu bhusan pal. thereafter on the second day of the hearing the deputy controller of patents & designs rejected theprayers made by the petitioner on 6th sept., 1983. according to the petitioner no formal order was passed by the respondent but the decision of the respondent ..... respondent deputy controller of patents & designs reiterating the prayers made by him on 10th august, 1983 praying for leave to file an affidavit of the said suraj mohan khorana, prayed for rejection of the ..... the affidavit of one suraj mohan khorana affirmed on 2nd july, 1983. the petitioner sought for further leave to cross-examine the said himangshu bhusan pal. the deputy controller of patents & designs rejected the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner and fixed the next date of hearing on the 6th september, 1983. the petitioner filed a formal interlocutory application before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1984 (HC)

Niki Tasha India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Faridabad Gas Gadgets Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-03-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Delhi336; 26(1984)DLT355

..... convenience. the defendants' ability to pay damages is a factor which tilts the scales against the plaintiffs. (for an excellant summary of the principles governing interlocutory injunctions see terrell on patents 13th edition, pp. 371-373). (17) in england the design registration system may soon disappear as a species of intellectual property. the whiteford committee has recommended it. the ..... case for excluding protection starts from the fact that (in the absence of any patent or confidential information) copying of individual products has traditionally been a legitimate part of the competitive process. (cornish : intellectual property pp. 421, 607). (18) in halsbury's laws ..... bearing in mind that the law of designs exists for the purpose of protecting innovations which do not involve such invention as is necessary for the subject matter of letters patent, yet rightly considers that there must be some check on the hampering of industries which would result if every unimportant alteration of shape or pattern, become the subject ..... of a monopoly. in the present case undoubtedly the design is a recent one, the monopoly of which is sought to be established. the principle which applies to monopolies in patents equally applies to the 'comparatively minor monopoly in designs' (smith v. grigg ltd., (supra) per scrutton, l.j., at page 153). applying the accustomed principles of order 39 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1984 (HC)

Madura Coats Limited and ors. Vs. Chetan Dev

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-01-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H43

..... the patents act, 1970 (act 39 of 1970) was, in substance, the same in its content, as s. 120 of the act, and provided for the remedy ..... an action for interim injunction restraining the defendant from holding out threats, the plaintiff must state that he has not infringed the patent of the defendant in order to give him the right of action. whether he has infringed the patent or not would be a matter which would have to be adjudicated upon in due course, but there must be at ..... least a clear statement to that effect. in the above said case, the suit was brought under s. 36 of the patents and designs act, 1911, which, before its repeal by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 1984 (HC)

Entertaining Enterprises, Madras and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-21-1984

Reported in : AIR1984Mad278

..... the protection of the copyright act and what are the punishments for infringement thereof will clearly fall within the legislative power of the parliament under entry 49 of list 1 'patents, inventions and designs; copyright: trademarks and merchandise marks.' and the state legislature cannot bring in new rights under the copyright act and make the infringement a more serious offence than .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 1984 (HC)

C.R. Raman Vs. Karthikayan

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-19-1984

Reported in : AIR1984Ker208

..... exercise of the jurisdiction vested under article 227 of the constitution of indiaas well. it may also be acting 'in excess of jurisdiction'. per lord denning -- in baldwin & francis v. patents appeal tribunal, (1959) 2 ah er 433 at pp. 447, 448.7. i hereby annul or set aside the order passed by the principal munsiff, cochin dated 12-4-1984 ..... c. but the court will so act only if the court is prima facie, satisfied, that resistance or obstruction, has been offered by a person on a ground, which is patently without substance, or whose claim is on the face of it unacceptable and cannot be said to be in good faith. in that behalf, it is open to the court ..... into account a situation where resistance to possession is offeredor obstruction is made by the judgment-debtor or any other person bound by the decree on a ground which is patently without substance. it will include the case of a person who claims to be in possession in his own right and independently of the judgment-debtor but whose claim is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1984 (FN)

Sony Corp. Vs. Universal City Studios

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-17-1984

..... . a. latman, fair use of copyrighted works (1958), reprinted in study no. 14 for the senate committee on the judiciary, copyright law revision, studies prepared for the subcommittee on patents, trademarks, and copyrights, 86th cong., 2d sess., 1 (1960) (latman fair use study). this study found no reported case supporting the existence of an exemption for private use, ..... ] cf. a. latman, fair use of copyrighted works (1958), reprinted in study no. 14 for the senate committee on the judiciary, copyright law revision, studies prepared for the subcommittee on patents, trademarks, and copyrights, 86th cong., 2d sess., 30 (1960): "in certain situations, the copyright owner suffers no substantial harm from the use of his work. . . . here again ..... right to claim that its distribution constitutes contributory infringement. "to form the basis for contributory infringement, the item must almost be uniquely suited as a component of the patented invention." p. rosenberg, patent law fundamentals 17.02[2] (2d ed.1982). "[a] sale of an article which though adapted to an infringing use is also adapted to other and lawful ..... functional equivalent of holding that the disputed article is within the monopoly granted to the patentee. [ footnote 21 ] for that reason, in contributory infringement cases arising under the patent laws, the court has always recognized the critical importance of not allowing the patentee to extend his monopoly beyond the limits of his specific grant. these cases deny the patentee .....

Tag this Judgment!


Summa Corp. Vs. Cal. State Lands Comm'n

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1984

..... by the board of commissioners. new orleans v. united states, supra, at 35 u. s. 733 -734. the decision in eldridge v. trezevant, supra, did not even involve a confirmatory patent, but simply the question whether an outright federal grant was exempt from longstanding local law permitting construction of a levee on private property for public safety purposes. while the court ..... of such an easement in the federal patent proceedings. the interest claimed by california is one of such substantial magnitude that, regardless of the fact that the claim is asserted by the state in its sovereign capacity, ..... and that, even if it were tideland and subject to servitude under mexican law, such a servitude was forfeited by the state's failure to assert it in the federal patent proceedings. held: california cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioner's property, when petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention ..... the war with mexico, which was formally ended by the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo in 1848. petitioner s predecessors-in-interest had their interest in the lagoon confirmed in federal patent proceedings pursuant to an 1851 act that had been enacted to implement the treaty, and that provided that the validity of claims to california lands would be decided according to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1984 (FN)

Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. Vs. Hyde

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-27-1984

..... the number of customers affected, the functional relation between the tied and tying product. [ footnote 2/7 ] a common misconception has been that a patent or copyright, a high market share, or a unique product that competitors are not able to offer suffices to demonstrate market power. while each of ..... of this case, it is inappropriate to attempt to resolve that question. in international salt co. v. united states, supra, the court assumed that a patent conferred market power, and therefore sufficiently established "the tendency of the arrangement to accomplishment of monopoly." id. at 332 u. s. 396 . in its ..... arrangements should be disapproved only in such instances. market power in the tying product may be acquired legitimately ( e.g., through the grant of a patent) or illegitimately ( e.g., as a result of unlawful monopolization). in either event, exploitation of consumers in the market for the tying page 466 ..... in the market for a second product will undermine competition on the merits in that second market. thus, the sale or lease of a patented item on condition that the buyer make all his purchases of a separate tied product from the patentee is unlawful. see united states v. ..... this threshold is surmounted, per se prohibition is appropriate if anticompetitive forcing is likely. for example, if the government has granted the seller a patent or similar monopoly over a product, it is fair to presume that the inability to buy the product elsewhere gives the seller market power. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1984 (FN)

Capital Cities Cable, Inc. Vs. Crisp

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-18-1984

..... administration of justice of the house committee on the judiciary, 94th cong., 1st sess., pt. 2, p. 758 (1975); copyright law revision: hearings on s. 1361 before the subcommittee on patents, trademarks, and copyrights of the senate committee on the judiciary, 93d cong., 1st sess., 291-292, 400-401 (1973). [ footnote 14 ] the keystone of this system, 111(c)(1), provides .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 1984 (HC)

Dharam Dev Malik Vs. Raj Rani

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-25-1984

Reported in : AIR1984Delhi389; 1984(7)DRJ19

..... allegations against her and she was practically turned out of the house after being maltreated and beaten. it was on that account that she went to the house of her patents along with her son in help- less condition and was living there in great distress. obviously, there is not even a whisper about the appellant having left her at sonepat .....

Tag this Judgment!

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