Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.20 seconds)The Designs Act, 2000
The Copyright Act, 1957
Section 14 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr on 12 December, 2007
In 2008 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 1 (Eastern
Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr.) it has been held
that, copyright has nothing to do with originality of literary work.
Copyright is that which is created by the author or it is a derivative
work which gives a creativity. The copyright work which comes into
being should be original in the sense that by virtue of selection, co-
ordination or arrangement of pre-existing data contained in the
work, a work somewhat different is produced by the author.
Microfibres Inc vs Girdhar And Co. And Ors. on 13 January, 2006
Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff
cannot claim infringement as regards a mechanically produced label
and relies upon 2009 Volume 40 Patents and Trade Marks Cases
page 519 (Del.) (Microfibres Inc. V. Girdhar & Co. & Ors.) and
16
2010 Volume 43 Patents and Trade Marks Cases page 193 (V.
Pichandi Sole Proprietor and Trading as Shri Ambikamatch
Works, Gudiyattam (Tamilnadu) v. Chakrapani Ilango trading
as M/s. Chakrapani Match Works, Gudiyattam (Tamilnadu)).
Sait Tarajee Khimchand And Ors. vs Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya And ... on 19 April, 1971
In Sait Tarajee Khimchand & Ors. (supra) the Supreme
Court has held that the contents of the documents must also be
established by evidence. In the instant case, the computer prints out
of logos of other manufacturers allegedly using similar labels have
been marked as exhibits. The contents of these documents have not
been established. In any event, the existence of other users
18
manufacturing different products than the plaintiff, alleged to have
similar label as that of the plaintiff, such fact by itself does not
disentitle the plaintiff from seeking the relief against the defendant
as sought for in the plaint.
Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 6 May, 2004
Satyam Infoway Ltd. (supra) has considered on application
for grant of an interim order of injunction. It has been held that,
there are three elements in an action for passing off. The first
element is that the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from
passing off his goods and services to the public as that of the
plaintiff in order to preserve and protect the reputation of the
plaintiff and to safeguard the public. The second element required to
be established by the plaintiff that that the defendant had made a
misrepresentation to the public.
Prakash Glass And Rubber Works And Anr. vs Hindustan Safety Glass Works Private ... on 5 August, 2005
In Prakash Glass and Rubber Works & Anr. (supra) it has
been held as follows:-
John Wiley & Sons Inc. & Ors vs International Book Store & Anr. on 20 May, 2010
In John Wiley & Sons Inc. & Ors. (supra) the Delhi High
Court on the question of damages has held that, bald assertion of
loss of business without any evidence would not entitle the plaintiff
21
to damages. In such circumstances, the plaintiff would not be
allowed to claim anything more than reasonable damages. The Court
had proceeded to quantify damages of Rs.3,50,000/- in that case.