Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)Section 19 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Bharat Glass Tube Limited vs Gopal Glass Works Limited on 1 May, 2008
56. As held by the Supreme Court in Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited, supra, cited by Mr.Bharath, the sole purpose of the Designs Act 2000 is to protect designs devised to be applied to particular articles which might be manufactured and marketed commercially.
Whirlpool Of India Ltd vs Videocon Industries Ltd on 27 May, 2014
17. The law in regard to similarity which constitutes infringement and which in turn attracts an order of injunction has been explained by this Court in Alert India Ltd (supra).
Metro Plastic Industries (Regd) vs M/S. Galaxy Footwear New Delhi on 10 December, 1999
53. Citing a Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Metro Plastic Industries v. Galaxy Footwear, reported in 2000 (20) PTC 1, Mr.Bharath argued that in the absence of an application for cancellation of the design, such a right cannot be enforced and no defence can be taken based on a ground of cancellation.
Gopal Glass Works Ltd. vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... on 17 August, 2005
In Gopal Glass Works v. Assistant Controller of Patent Designs and others, reported in 2006 (33) PTC 434 (Cal), cited by Mr. Bharath, one of us (Indira Banerjee, CJ) held that mere publication of designs, specific drawings and/or demonstrations in connection with an application for registration would not, in itself, amount to publication that would render a design registered in India liable to cancellation.
J.N. Electricals (India) vs President Electricals on 20 August, 1979
Reference in the said case has been mae to an earlier decision in J.N. Electricals (India) v. President Electricals, ILR 1980 (1) Delhi 215 where it was explained that the sameness of features does not necessarily mean that the two designs must be identical on all points and should differ on none. They have to be substantially the same
36. Thus for determining whether two designs are identical or not, it is not necessary that the two designs should be exactly the same. The main consideration to be applied is whether the broad features of shape, configuration, pattern etc. are same or nearly the same and if they are substantially the same, then it will be a case of imitation of the design of one by the other