Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.34 seconds)
Nec Corporation vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs ... on 9 March, 2026 cites

Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Private Limited on 8 March, 2022

In fact, in the recent decision Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. (Supra) where the overlap between the Copyright Act 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000 was in issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only exhaustively gone into the interpretation of "design" by the English Courts and the US Courts but after going into a review of the authorities acknowledged that the term design has been extensively interpreted by English Courts, considering that the expression was pari materia with the definition consecrated in the Indian context and are of highly persuasive value. In this background, the outright rejection of foreign decisions in the 22 2026:CHC-OS:73 impugned orders as also in the UST Global decision is misconceived and erroneous.
Competition Commission of India Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ust Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs ... on 20 March, 2023

22. For the above reasons, once the specific features, that is shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation etc. are applied to an article and meant for industrial purposes it becomes a design and is no longer an artistic work. GUI as a design does not create dual protection because the legal character of a GUI when integrated and industrially applied to an article differs from a standard artistic work or a computer programme. This would require examination on a case to case basis. UST Global (Singapore) vs. Controller of Patents and Designs
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - R K Kapur - Full Document

Microsoft Corporation vs Azure Knowledge Corporation Pvt. Ltd on 9 August, 2023

In support of such contentions reliance was placed on Cryogas Equipment Private Limited vs Inox India Ltd 2025 SCC Online SC 780, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. vs. Apple Inc 137 S.Ct.429, Microsoft Corporation vs. Corel Corporation 5:15-cv-05836-EJD, K.K.Suwa Seikosha's Design Application [1982] R.P.C. 166, In re: Hruby 54 C.C.P.A. 1196. Construing "article" and "design"
Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs M/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006

11. In interpreting the Act, one should apply the principles of updating construction which suggests a construction which takes into account relevant changes which have occurred since the enactment was made. This would require analyzing the nature of the particular Act and taking into account the relevant changes in modern day technology. In such cases, legislature intended that the Court's interpretation takes into account advancements which have occurred since the enactment of the legislation. In the light of the above, the term industrial process must be interpreted to take into account technical and scientific advancements. Moreso, while interpreting intellectual property legislation which are fundamentally linked to such developments. [Bennion on Statutory Interpretation 7th Edition at paragraphs 409-424 and State of Punjab vs. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 607 at paras 14 and 15].
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 11 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next