Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 22 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The Designs Act, 2000
Section 21 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Metro Plastic Industries (Regd) vs M/S. Galaxy Footwear New Delhi on 10 December, 1999
8. Mr. Hemant Singh has placed reliance, in this context, on the
judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Metro Plastic Industries
(Regd.) v. Galaxy Footwear New Delhi3 and of the High Court of
Calcutta in Rotomac Pens Ltd. v. Milap Chand & Co.4. Mr. Hemant
Singh submits that, unlike the present 2000 Designs Act, the
predecessor statute i.e., Section 51A of the Designs Act, 1911 (―the
1911 Designs Act‖), specifically provided for filing of a cancellation
petition before the High Court. In that statutory scenario, Mr. Hemant
(1) Any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a
design at any time after the registration of the design, to the Controller on any of the following
grounds, namely:--
Designs Act, 1911
S.D. Containers Indore vs M/S. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd. on 1 December, 2020
12. Paras 2,3,4, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 19 of the said decision merit
reproduction, thus:
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited vs Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty.Ld.& ... on 29 January, 2010
4. The said order passed by the Commercial Court was
challenged by the respondent-plaintiff before the Madhya Pradesh
High Court. The High Court examined the question as to whether
the proceedings of the said suit was liable to be transferred to the
High Court or if the Commercial Court at Indore was competent to
decide the matter. The High Court relied upon Godrej Sara Lee
Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd6. to hold that the
legislature intended that an application for cancellation of
registration of designs would lie to the Controller exclusively
without the High Court having a parallel jurisdiction to entertain
such matter because the appeals from the order of the Controller lie
before the High Court. It was further held that the 2015 Act is a
special enactment having an overriding effect, save as otherwise
provided the provisions, by virtue of Section 21 of the said Act.