Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.74 seconds)Section 19 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The Designs Act, 2000
Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Mohan Lal Proprietor Of Mourya ... vs Sona Paint & Hardwares on 15 May, 2013
17. It was argued by counsel that the defendants' plea that Crocs Incs'
registered design does not fall within the definition of a design defined under
section 2(d) of the Act as it is a functional one, which impelled the single
judge to hold that there was nothing novel in it, is erroneous. It was pointed
out that the Plaintiffs registered design specifically states that "no claim is
made by virtue of this registration in respect of any mode or principle of
construction of the footwear". It is further submitted that for a defense of
functionality to succeed it is not sufficient to say that the registered design
has some relevance to its function. The defendants had to prove that the
design is the only mode/option possible for performing that function. It is
submitted that the present design in terms of its functionality can be achieved
in various forms/modes including by the present design. They however failed
to show that this is the only mode/option for achieving its function. Counsel
relied on Whirlpool of India Ltd. v Videocon Industries Ltd. 2014(60) PTC
155 (Bom) excerpts from Copyright and Industrial Designs by A.D. Russell
Clarke, Chapter 15; and Mohan Lal, Proprietor of Mourya Industries v. Sona
Paint & Hardware 2013 (55) PTC 61 (Del.) (FB).
Section 35 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Vinod Seth vs Devinder Bajaj & Anr on 5 July, 2010
47. Award of costs generally was perceived to be a matter of discretion.
Traditionally, courts were reluctant to award "high" amounts as costs. This
led, over a period of time, to steady disconnect between the costs actually
incurred by a party to prosecute or defend a claim, and what it was awarded,
in the form of recompense in the event of success on the merits. The Supreme
Court in Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj 2010 (8) SCC 1, observed as follows:
Manindra Chandra Nandy And Ors. vs Aswini Kumar Acharyya on 15 June, 1920
48. The court cited with approval Manindra Chandra Nandi vs. Aswini
Kumar Acharjya, ILR(1921) 48 Cal 427 -in Vinod Seth‟s case the following
passage: