Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2004 Page 100 of about 1,374 results (0.019 seconds)

Oct 13 2004 (TRI)

Harmit Singh Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

Decided on : Oct-13-2004

..... mouth of the o.ps. at this stage, to claim that the complainant is not a consumer. 10. the delay of 8 years in issuance of the registration certificate is patent and other than the outbreak of fire on 5.12.2000 no reason has been given by the o.ps. for this delay. learned district forum-i has rightly observed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2004 (TRI)

Ajay Kumar Vs. Union of India

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

Decided on : Jul-29-2004

..... believe that the complainant was totally illiterate... ? 8. it was further observed in para 7 of the impugned order that ??his version that it was not returned to him is patently false and dishonest. such like dishonest litigants must be discouraged and suitably penalized.... ? 9. we are of the considered opinion that such expressions in describing the complainant without any adequate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2004 (TRI)

Medical Superintendent Incharge, Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institu ...

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

Decided on : Mar-10-2004

..... satisfactory explanation of the presence of the products of conception in the uterus of the patient on 30.4.2000. hence negligence and deficiency in service on their part is patent... ? 14. it is evident that the district forum compared the line of treatment undertaken at rajendra hospital, patiala and notwithstanding the earlier finding recorded by the district forum upholding the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2004 (TRI)

ishikawajima-harima Heavy Industries Co.Ltd., Vs. Director of Income-t ...

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Decided on : Oct-11-2004

..... . the said agreement was in two parts ?? one is to sell trade secrets (know-how) by the japanese company relating to the products and manufacturing technique which also included the patent rights and advice of plant layout and installation. the consideration for this part of the agreement was 1,65,000 us dollars, free of indian income tax and payable in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2004 (TRI)

Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. Milton Plastics

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Dec-03-2004

..... available. the honest concurrent use under section 12(3) of the act needs the use surely which has to be honest and concurrently but over a long period which is patently lacking in the present case.10. in view of the above we feel that the assistant registrar of trade marks has rightly disallowed the registration and accepted the opposition. hence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2004 (TRI)

United Breweries Limited and Another Vs. Balbir and Son(Agencies) and ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-27-2004

..... registrar, while recording that the appellant is the prior adopter and user of the trade mark 'kalyani black label' and the respondent's conduct amounted to commercial dishonesty, grossly and patently erred in ordering that the appellant's opposition be disallowed and the application no. 412036 of the respondent for registration of the label 'balbi black label' to proceed to registration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2004 (TRI)

Chateau De Cognac S.A. Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Oct-27-2004

..... 22 of the trade and merchandise marks act. however, the law in this regard under the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958, is specific and clear. the deputy registrar was patently in error in rejecting the interlocutory petition. he should have allowed the substitution of the parties as requested for. 7. having rejected the interlocutory petition, the deputy registrar heard the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2004 (TRI)

United Brothers Vs. Aziz Ulchani and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Dec-03-2004

..... ) ltd., . (d) lego system aktieselskab v. lego m. lemelstrich ltd., 1983 fleet street reports 155. (e) the dunlop pneumatic tyre co. ld. v. the dunlop lubricant co., 1898 reports of patent, design. (f) surjit singh v. alembic glass industries, . (g) essel packaging limited v. essel tea exports ltd., 1999 ptc bom 521. (h) m/s. banga watch company v. m/s .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2004 (HC)

Mitter Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR180

g.s. singhvi, j.1. this appeal is directed against order dated 20.8.1996 passed by the learned single judge in c.w.p. no. 7843 of 1994.2. a perusal of the order under appeal shows that while rejecting the prayer of the private respondents for quashing orders dated 27.5.1987 and 17.5.1994 passed by the financial commissioner, the learned single judge directed him to decide the revision petition filed by appellant smt. mitter kaur against the cancellation of land allotted to her father-in-law, namely, bawa mani singh. the relevant extracts of the order of the learned single judge are reproduced below:'the order of the financial commissioner was passed on 27.5.1987. the petitioners filed an application to set aside the order dated 27.5.1987. the financial commissioner dismissed the second application on the ground that the order earlier passed by his predecessor on 27.5.1987 has become final and, therefore, he cannot interfere with the same. when the financial commissioner passed the order on 27.5.1987, there was no provision to file another application by way of revision to set aside the said order by the same authority. if the petitioners were really aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.1987, they should have either filed an application of review or challenged the order in the high court. the petitioners failed to take any such step. therefore, i do not find any ground warranting interference with the order passed by the financial commissioner vide annexure p.9 dated 17.5.1994. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2004 (HC)

Pathan Umravkhan Amirkhan Vs. Shakinaben W/D. Umravmiya

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-02-2004

Reported in : (2004)3GLR489

1. widow shakinaben and her sons - original petitioners had filed special civil application no. 7239 of 1989 before this court under article 227 of the constitution of india, with following prayers made in para: 21 of the petition:(a) to quash and set aside the order of the mamlatdar and alt dtd.23.10. 1984 at annexure:c, and the order of the gujarat revenue tribunal passed in ten. b.a. 446 of 1985 dtd. 5.8.1988 at annexure:e, and also the order of the gujarat revenue tribunal in review application no. ten. c.a. 43/88 dtd. 21.7.1989 at annexure:f.(b) to confirm the judgment and order of the deputy collector, kheda dtd. 20.5.1985 in tenancy appeal no. 628 of 1984 at annexure:d, and(c) to dismiss the application filed by the respondent under sec. 70-b of the act, and(d) to remand the case to decide according to law.'2. before the learned single judge, on behalf of the original petitioners, it was submitted that the learned mamlatdar and alt, thasra, had wrongly allowed the application of the respondent by his order dated 23.10.1984, therefore, it was rightly set aside in appeal filed by them before deputy collector on 28.5.1985. but, the gujarat revenue tribunal (for short 'tribunal') wrongly allowed the revision application of the respondent and quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned deputy collector by its order dated 5.8.1988. it was submitted that the learned tribunal ought not to have exercised its revisional jurisdiction in favour of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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