Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In reply Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments relied on by the respondent will not aid it after the 2000 Act. Section 2(d) and the 1911 Act is not extended to lines as under the 2000 Act. There is no novelty in lines. Cancellation under the 2000 Act is wider than under Section 51A of the 1911 Act. The counter-statement at Page 53 be looked into. The container in respect of the conical pail was pre-published. Container is a trade variant and its skirting is functional. 2000 PTC 177 is distinguishable so also (2005) 31 PTC 129. (2001) 21 PTC 23 is a case of injunction as both filed cancellation applications and no order was passed. AIR (2008) SC 2520 was a case of surface pattern.