novelty and originality
is not destroyed by its being taken from source common to mankind.
A design is not registrable, inter alia ... this
section, is not destroyed by its being taken from a source common to
mankind...The novelty may consist in the applicability to the article
appellants upon the proposition that their defence as to common source should prevail as the plaintiff had merely embodied ... work information which is a matter of common knowledge or common observation on selections from non-copyright sources. Kelley v. Morris
this section, is not destroyed by its being
taken from a source common to mankind...The novelty may
consist in the applicability to the article ... change or
difference in the design, although, it may have a common source.
A mere trade variant without significant and substantial
noticeable features would destroy
this section, is not destroyed
by its being taken from a source common to mankind...The novelty may
consist in the applicability to the article ... change
or difference in the design, although, it may have a common source. A mere
trade variant without significant and substantial noticeable features would
destroy
committed
infringement of copyright regarding them. Regarding this plea of "common
source", it is well-known that a person relying on it must ... show that he went to
the common source from which he borrowed, employing his skill, loabour and
brains and that he did not merely
earlier proceeding and who is available.
4. Whether notwithstanding the common source of right of appeal being clause 15 of the Letters Patent
real owner against holders under derivative titles from a trespasser as common source. The decision in Ishan Chunder Hazra v. Rameswar Mondol
revenue that the real test was the existence of a common source of income in which two or more persons were interested as owners ... accept such contentions and held that the tests of the common source of income and general interest as owners were neither conclusive nor determinative
novelty and originality
is not destroyed by its being taken from source common to mankind.
The Supreme Court in Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal
been held that an author may avail himself of common sources of information on a subject but he is not entitled to save himself pain ... though such predecessor's work is based on materials which are common property. In , Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya v. Shivaratanlal Koshal it has been held
