Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.51 seconds)M/S. Kemp & Company & Another vs M/S. Prima Plastics Ltd. on 18 September, 1998
Kemp & Co. v. Prima Plastics Limited : (supra)
Section 55 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Designs Act, 2000
Section 22 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Dart Industries Inc & Anr vs Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors on 1 August, 2018
12. This Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dart Industries Inc. v. Polyset
Plastics Pvt. Ltd. [(2018) 75 PTC 495] in Para 36 held that a deliberate
imitation of a registered design would be a fraudulent imitation and thus
amount to infringement. The relevant part of the judgment is given as
follows: -
Whirlpool Of India Ltd vs Videocon Industries Ltd on 27 May, 2014
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Whirlpool of India Ltd. v.
Videocon Industries Ltd., [(2014) 60 PTC 155] made the following
observations regarding the tests that are to be applied in deciding what
constitutes an obvious imitation: -
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. And Anr. on 15 May, 2008
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
in Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. (2008) 49
(3) GLR 2635 has held that the test to determine whether two designs are
identical is that the designs have to be judged by the eye and that every
design has to be compared as a whole with all its features. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as follows: -