Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.45 seconds)The Copyright Act, 1957
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 15 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Microfibers Inc. vs Girdhar & Co. & Anr. on 28 May, 2009
(c) The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Microfibres II
(supra), has laid down that the term ‘artistic work’ has a broad
scope and may exist independently or as a precursor to a
design. Additionally, a design derived from an artistic work
may enjoy copyright protection, which ceases once it is
industrially applied beyond the threshold set in Section 15(2)
of the Copyright Act. Given these intricate distinctions, a more
detailed analysis is warranted, and such determinations
cannot be made at the very threshold.
Section 2 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Ors vs Aarya 24K And 5 Ors on 1 April, 2015
29. The Delhi High Court’s view in Microfibres II (supra) has found
favour with other High Courts, also, such as the Bombay High
Court in Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24 KT,6 and the
Kerala High Court in Fun World and Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Nimil KK.7
E.1.2.1.2 The aspect of Functional Utility
M/S.Fun World And Resorts (India) ... vs Nimil K.K on 13 January, 2020
29. The Delhi High Court’s view in Microfibres II (supra) has found
favour with other High Courts, also, such as the Bombay High
Court in Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24 KT,6 and the
Kerala High Court in Fun World and Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Nimil KK.7
E.1.2.1.2 The aspect of Functional Utility