Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited 2008 (37) PTC 1 (SC)

By

Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited 2008 Case Summary/Interpretation|| Bharat Glass Tube Ltd v Gopal Glass Works Ltd summary


Facts

  1. In a suit filed by the respondent (Gopal Glass Works Ltd), the District Court decreed in his favour and restrained the appellant (Bharat Glass Tube Ltd) from infringing the design registered by the respondent.
  2. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under S.19 of the Design Act, 2000 before the Controller of Patents & Designs for the cancellation of the registration of the respondent's design on the ground that the design was not new or original and has already been published in India.
  3. The appellant submitted two documents for his contention:-
    1. The German company that manufactured the roller with the design for the respondent had already registered the design in 1992 for the roller.
    2. A document downloaded from the official website of the Patent Office of the United Kingdom shows that the same design was registered in the name of an English company.
  4. Although the Assistant Controller cancelled the registration, the High Court in an appeal by the respondents reversed the cancellation order and dismissed the application of the cancellation. 
  5. Therefore this appeal came here.

Issue

  1. Whether the registered design of the respondent can be cancelled on the grounds stated by the appellant in his application.

Decisions

  1. The two documentary evidence failed to establish the reproduction of this registered design on glass sheets anywhere in the world.
  2. Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs 50000.

Ratio Decidendi

  1. The purpose of the Designs Act is not to protect the reproduction of the registered design which is a matter of copyright but to protect the reproduction of the finished article on which the design is reproduced.
  2. The expression "new or original" mentioned in S.4 of the Design Act means that the design has not been published anywhere in the world or has been made known to the public. It means it is a new invention which has not been reproduced by anyone.
  3. The burden of proof in a cancellation proceeding rests with the complainant.
  4. The appellant only submitted that the German company produced/invented the design for its roller way back in 1992, which had to be used to reproduce the design on the glass, rexine or leather, but they failed to prove its reproduction on the glass sheets by any manufacturer from anywhere in the world.
  5. A foreign registered design can not be the ground for cancellation under S.19(1)(a) of a design registered in India.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more