Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Smithkline Beecham Consumer ... vs G.D. Rathore And Ors. on 16 January, 2002
In Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare GMBH and others v. G.D.Rathore and Others 2002(25) PTC 243 (Delhi) the infringed article was a toothbrush manufactured by the plaintiff. In a passing off action the court held that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts so was not entitled to the discretionary relief of ad interim injunction. It was further held that there was no pleading that the plaintiff's toothbrush "Aquafresh Flex" had acquired goodwill and reputation in India; shape feature (S bend) was functional in nature and the same would be incapable of any protection; many companies were manufacturing toothbrush having similar dimensions and shapes; previously the plaintiff's suit on the ground of infringement of copyright against two other companies was dismissed; no strong and cogent material was on record in support of the passing off so the ex parte ad interim injunction granted earlier in favor of the plaintiff was vacated.
Section 19 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The Designs Act, 2000
Hello Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. vs Thermoking California Pure on 20 July, 1999
In Hello Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. v. Thermoking California Pure 2000 PTC 177 it was held that mere novelty of form or shape is insufficient. Novelty involves the presence of some element or new position of an old element in combination, different from anything found in any prior structure.
The Pilot Pen Co. (India) Private Ltd., ... vs The Gujarat Industries Private Ltd., ... on 21 March, 1966
In The Pilot Pen Co. (India) Private Ltd, Madras v. The Gujarat Industries Private Ltd, Bombay a suit for injunction was filed restraining the defendants from using type of clips of fountain pens imitating plaintiff's design registered under the Act. The registration was in force when the suit was instituted but found to have expired before injunction was granted. The Court held that relief in terms prayed for was not available. It was further held that the registration cannot be deemed to be effective unless design sought to be protected is new and original and not of a pre-existing common type. It was further observed that unless there was something new or original in a design, a person claiming right in such a design by reason of its registration may not claim or obtain any protection. Further it was observed that registration could not be deemed effective unless the design or configuration, sought to be protected, is new and original and not of a pre-existing common type. Court also noted that the tops with such clips are not sold separately and when fixed to the barrel, there are other distinguishing features in both the pens, therefore, the court did not even find merit in the case of the plaintiff.