Posts

Showing posts with the label Designs Act

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Image
Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. Case Summary Facts 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. 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- 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. 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 und
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Image
Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited 2008 Case Summary/Interpretation|| Bharat Glass Tube Ltd v Gopal Glass Works Ltd summary Facts 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. 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. The appellant submitted two documents for his contention:- The German company that manufactured the roller with the design for the respondent had already registered the design in 1992 for the roller. 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
Post a Comment
Read more