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

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. 15 March, 2013

By

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. Case Summary


Facts

  1. The issue referred to this full bench was raised out of an appeal made to the division bench where the appellant was claiming the protection of its registered design for an S-shaped spatula from infringing by the respondent.
  2. The referred issues were concerned with the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Amit Jain & Anr ., 2009 in which-
    1. they held that the term "prior publication" as mentioned in S.4(b) & S.19(1)(b) does not include publication abroad by the existence of the design in the records of the Registrar which is open for public inspection.
    2. they concurred with the judgement of the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Gopal Glass Works Ltd. 2006 and held that mere publication of designs, specifications, drawings and/or demonstrations by the patent office in a foreign country would not make a design registered in India liable to cancellation under S.19(1)(b).
  3. The reference order stated that the said judgements have overlooked the provision of S.44 of the Designs Act, 2000.

Issues

  1. Whether a design previously registered abroad in a convention country is a ground for cancellation of a design subsequently registered in India under S.19(1)(a).
  2. If it is a ground then whether it is an absolute rule or falls under the circumstances where a design registered abroad gets registered by applying within 6 months for registration in India.
  3. If it is not a ground under S.19(1)1(a), whether it amounts to prior publication u/s. 19(1)(b) read with S.4(b).
  4. What is the meaning of "publication abroad/published abroad".

Ratio

  1. Although, the Parliament while enacting S.19(1)(b) deliberately included "prior publication abroad" as a ground for cancellation which was absent in the earlier Act of 1911 under S. 51A (1)(a)(ii), they without making any change incorporated the same words of S. 51A (1)(a)(i) of the Act of 1911 in S.19(1)(a) of the Act of 2000 i.e. previously registered in India. It shows the clear intent of the Parliament to not include "prior registration abroad" as a ground for cancellation of design subsequently registered in India.
  2. The literal interpretation of S.19(1)(a) makes clear that a design previously registered in India only is a ground for cancellation.
  3. A previously registered design abroad can be a ground for cancellation only if it has been applied for registration in India within six months of the application being made in a foreign country.
  4. If the person who applied abroad for registration fails to apply within six months for registration in India will not be entitled to get the priority of registration based on the earlier date of registration abroad in a convention country.
  5. The "publication" under S.4(b) shall be ready on the principle of "Noscitur a sociis" which means "it is known by its associates". Therefore S.4(b) requires "publication by use in tangible form or in any other way" which means a mere publication on a paper is not included but if the visual appearance of the design on paper places the same impact on the public as a furnished article will appeal when judged solely by the naked eye, it comes within the scope of S.4(1)(b).
  6. The term "prior publication" is a question of fact to be decided as per the evidence led in each case.
  7. The existence of a foreign registered design in the register of the Registrar may amount to "prior publication only if-
    1. it is made public, and
    2. there is a complete clarity of being applied to a specific article capable of being judged by the visual appearance or eye of the mind.

Decisions

  1. The judgements of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Amit Jain & Anr., 2009 were rightly held.

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