Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Copyright Act, 1957
Designs Act, 1911
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Section 2 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959
31. Therefore, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported in AIR 1960 SC 142 (Corn Products Refining Company v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.) is not applicable to the present facts of the case since there was no infringement of copy right or the reputation attached to the goods.
M/S Bengal Waterproof Limited vs M/S Bombay Waterproof ... on 18 November, 1996
43. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that if the subsequent suit was in respect of the same cause of action like that of the previous suit, the suit is clearly barred and no cause of action to continue. There would be corresponding continuous causes of action in passing off which continued the deceit, which would give fresh causes of action. As regards this case, the infringement of copy right as well as passing off were clearly described in both the plaints similar. But the dates of cause of action alone has been mentioned as 1st week of December and 3rd week of December 1995 respectively. Once, the plaintiff has found the infringement of copy right, even if true, the cause of action to file a suit would not enure again to go for filing another suit on a subsequent infringment of the copy right he had. As far as the passing off relief is concerned, it is purely a subsequent cause of action in which the action of the defendant would be on the passing of his products as that of the plaintiff in the later point of time to which a subsequent cause of action would enure. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court would apply to the relief sought for by the plaintiff for passing off and not to the relief of infringement of the copy right. Therefore, the part of the relief namely the reliefs sought for permanent injunction for infringement of alleged copy right of the plaintiff is clearly barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, since permission was not obtained by the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC and therefore Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC prohibits the repeated filing of suit on the same cause of action. When the said relief sought for by the plaintiff are party barred or partly allowable, this point of res judicata is also decided accordingly.
Polymer Papers Ltd. vs Mr. Gurmit Singh And Ors. on 31 May, 2002
35. The learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2002 (25) PTC 327 (Delhi) (Polymer Papers Ltd v. Gurmit Singh & others) for the principle that the copy right resulting a design cannot be claimed since the said design has to be registered under the Designs Act. The relevant paragraph would run as follows :