Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Rajesh Masrani vs Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd. on 28 November, 2008

Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd vs Puma Sports India (Pvt.) Ltd on 23 June, 2015

34. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs also relied on the decision reported in 2009 (107) DRJ 484 (DB) (Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.), wherein the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court considered the scope of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and found that the plaintiff therein is entitled for protection under that Section.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Microfibers Inc. vs Girdhar & Co. & Anr. on 28 May, 2009

f. The respondents' fabrics being colorable imitations or substantially similar copies of the original underlying modified paintings of the appellant amounted to infringement of the artistic copyright therein. This is particularly so when inspite of the work of the respondent being claimed to be independent, no details of such original independent work were forthcoming. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Rajesh Masrani vs. Tahiliani Designs Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (39) PTC 21 (Del.)] which held that Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 does not include any artistic work as defined in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. It was also held in the above RFA (OS) No. 25/2006 Page 12 of 72 judgment that it is evident from the definition of ‗design' under the Designs Act, 2000 that the artistic work as defined in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 is excluded if any party is able to bring his case within the framework of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 while claiming the copyright. In such a situation, the suit for infringement is maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 25 - M Mudgal - Full Document

M/S Puneet Industrial Controls vs M/S Classic Electronics & Anr on 8 October, 2012

21. The case of Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2009 Delhi 44 has been relied upon to cite that when it is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff is not holding any registration under the Designs Act, it is clear that Section 15 (1) of the Copyright Act is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case; section 15(2) of the Copyright Act is applicable to the copyright in any design capable of being registered under Designs Act, 1911 but has not been registered and the copyright in the said design cease to exist as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Ors vs Aarya 24K And 5 Ors on 1 April, 2015

On the other hand, the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Masrani Vs Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd6. was concerned with drawings made in the course of developing garments and accessories by the Plaintiff, which were claimed as artistic works under Section 2(c)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The contention of the Plaintiff was that 'artistic work' was distinct from 'design' and remains 'artistic work' per se distinct from the 'garment' to which it is applied and, therefore, covered under the exclusion contained in the definition of 'design' under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. The Delhi High Court accepted the Plaintiff's contention, holding as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - S C Gupte - Full Document

La Chemise Lacoste vs M/S. Rampage (Nst) on 5 November, 2014

19(b) Regarding the infringement of their copyright, reference to Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Design Pvt, Ltd., AIR 2009 Delhi 44 and R.G. Anand Vs. Delux Films (1978) 4SCC 118, has been made to contend that one of the surest and safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets in unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. 19(c) Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 10 argued that PW 1 had no personal knowledge about the crucial fact of this case. He has deposed contradictory to his testimony recorded on 12.08.2010 in similar other case no. 08/2009 filed against M/s Selection Centres & Ors. He therefore cannot be relied upon to base findings.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Flakes And Ors vs Limerick Designs And Ors on 29 November, 2025

33. Mr. Ankit Yadav, ld. Counsel for defendants, also relied upon Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Designs Pvt. Ltd., 2008 SCC Online Del 1283. In this case plaintiff's work was held to be entitled to protection under Section 2 (c) of Copyrights Act and was further held to be the original artistic work. Since, in the present case defendants' work cannot be termed as original artistic work and hence, this judgment is distinguishable on facts.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nanki Maggo Papneja And Ors vs M/S Mrs Flakes And Ors on 29 November, 2025

33. Mr. Ankit Yadav, ld. Counsel for defendants, also relied upon Rajesh Masrani Vs. Tahiliani Designs Pvt. Ltd., 2008 SCC Online Del 1283. In this case plaintiff's work was held to be entitled to protection under Section 2 (c) of Copyrights Act and was further held to be the original artistic work. Since, in the present case defendants' work cannot be termed as original artistic work and hence, this judgment is distinguishable on facts.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Sudhir Vohra vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 20 October, 2009

Hence, the information sought is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. He would, however, clarify that the intellectual property subsists only in the artistic character and design and shall not extend to processes or methods of construction. 14 He would further submit that registration of copy right is not a condition precedent for seeking protection of the Copyright Act, 1957. He has drawn the Commission's attention to para 33 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dated 28.11.2008 in Rajesh Masrani Vs Tahilaiani Design Pvt Ltd in this connection which is extracted below :-
Central Information Commission Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next