Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.60 seconds)Section 4 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 44 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. on 15 March, 2013
12.20 The Full Bench of this Court in Reckitt Benckiser Ltd v. Wyeth
21
Dabur India Ltd v. Amit Jain, (2009) 39 PTC 104 (Del)
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 421/2023 Page 39 of 64
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.12.2023
12:07:38
Ltd22 has analogised the principles of obvious and fraudulent
imitation, as envisaged in Section 22(1) with the principles of
confusing and deceptive similarity which find place in the Trade
Marks Act. In the case of the Designs Act, however, this aspect has to
be examined keeping in mind the definition of design as contained in
Section 2(d) and the law enunciated in Bharat Glass Tube. The entire
integrity of a design, as defined in Section 2(d) lies in its visual or eye
appeal. As such, whether examining the aspect of piracy of the
plaintiff's design by the defendant's design or novelty or originality of
the plaintiff's design vis-à-vis prior art, the Court has to examine the
matter from the point view of visual aspect or eye appeal, keeping in
mind the features of the plaintiff's design which have been certified as
novel and original while granting registration to it.