|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Bharat Glass Tube Limited vs Gopal Glass Works Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 May 2008]
Whether a design having been carved out of rollers purchased from German Company which could have been used on glass sheet, rexin or leather, when used for glass sheet was new or original design? - Held, design has been reproduced in the article like glass which is registered, its could have been registered with rexin or leather - For registration of a particular configuration or particular shape of thing which is sought to be reproduced on a particular article has to be applied - Design sought to be reproduced on a glass-sheet has been registered and there is no evidence to show that this design was registered earlier to be reproduced on glass in India or any other part of the country or in Germany or even for that matter in United Kingdom, therefore, it is for the first time registered in India which is new and original design which is to be reproduced on glass sheet - No evidence to show that German Company had manufactured this design in glass sheet or not; it is only a design downloaded from the website of the Patent office in U.K. and it is not known whether it was reproduced on glass-sheet in U.K. or not - Visual effect and/or appeal of a pattern embossed into glass sheets by use of embossing rollers could be different from the visual effect of the same pattern etched into glass sheets manually - Appeal dismissed.
|
Supercassette Industries vs Nirulas Corner House Private Limited
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT1. This order shall dispose off I.A. No. 10742/2007 preferred under Order VII Rule 11 by the applicant defendant seeking the rejection of the plaint and also I.A. No. 6882/2007 under
|
Shaw Wallace and Company Limited vs M.P. Beer Products Private Limited
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 09 Apr 2008]
Application filed under O. 7, r. 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for injunction and damages for infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off - Suit filed for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the trade mark '5000' or 'PRESIDENT 5000' which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'HAYWARDS 5000 SUPER STRONG BEER' in respect of its goods - Registered office of plaintiff company was at Calcutta and business office at Mumbai and plaintiff submitted that since the goods of the plaintiff were sold and offered for sale at various outlets at Delhi, this Court had jurisdiction but no where in plain averred that it was carrying on business in Delhi - Held, only if the goods of a company are sold at a place would not mean that company carries own the business at that place - By giving an address within the jurisdiction of this Court without specifying as to what the address was about, does not entitle a company to file the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court - Plaintiff company is having registered office at Calcutta and the other office at Mumbai, and the defendant is situated in Madhya Pradesh, no reason why the jurisdiction has been invoked of Delhi High Court when no cause of action arose in Delhi - When a Court had no jurisdiction at all in the matter, by consent the parties cannot confer jurisdiction - Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit - Application dismissed.
|
Pearson Education Inc vs Saifullah and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2008]
Appeal to challenge order whereby two applications, one under O. 39, rr. 1 and 2 of CPC moved by appellant and the other under O. 39, r.4 of CPC moved by the respondents were disposed of holding that respondent had merely reproduced some definitions, arrangement of topics, arrangement of analysis and, therefore, it could not be prima facie said that the books of the respondent were copies of plaintiff's books - Whether there is any similarity in the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea and whether there is any dissimilarity or difference in the treatment of the subject? - Held, once the said materials are compared, it would be established that what is used by the respondents in their books is substantial and material reproduction of the work of the appellant - Being a scientific and technical book, theme could be said to be the same but unfortunately in the present case, the same is not presented differently from the books of the appellant and it appears to be verbatim reproduction in many passages, as is evident from the materials which are available on record; the same indicates the intention to copy the original; it, therefore, cannot be said that the work of the respondent is completely new or primary - Appeal allowed.
|
Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. and Another vs Gopal Bakers and Confectioners (Distributor) and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 18 Mar 2008]
Settlement/Compromise during pendency of suit between parties - Suit had been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of plaintiffs' registered trade marks 'NESTLE MILKYBAR', 'MILKYBAR', 'POP CHOC' and 'HEART AND MOUTH' device - By way of settlement / compromise arrived at between parties, defendants acknowledged plaintiffs to be proprietors of the trade marks and 'SPLASH OF MILK' device and owners of copyright in 'MILKYBAR' and 'POP CHOC' packaging, including their get-up, layout, colour combination and arrangement of features and undertook not to manufacture, sell, offer for sale, advertise, or directly or indirectly, deal in any food products, including confectionery under the impugned trade marks, 'MILKYBALL', 'POPCHOC' or using the 'HEART AND MOUTH' device or any other trade mark or logo which may be identical or deceptively similar to the aforesaid trade mark(s) of the plaintiffs - Settlement signed by both the parties - Held, terms of settlement / compromise arrived at between parties are lawful; settlement is taken on record and the suit is decreed in terms thereof - Application disposed of.
|
Microsoft Corporation and Another vs Mitesh Jain and Another
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 17 Mar 2008]
Application filed to record compromise/settlement - Amicable settlement arrived between parties during pendency of suit which was filed against defendants alleging infringement of plaintiffs' copyright in software programme developed by plaintiffs and in particular 'Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002' and 'Microsoft Office 2002' - Defendants acknowledged plaintiffs to be proprietors and owners of copyrights in software programmes and undertook that they will not, in future, sell, offer for sale, distribute, issue to public, any counterfeit/pirated/unlicenced versions of plaintiffs' software or do any other act which would in any other manner amount to infringement of the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights - Application mentioning terms and conditions of settlement signed by both the parties - Held, terms of settlement arrived at between the parties are lawful; compromise / settlement is taken on record - Suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants in terms of the prayer contained in paragraph 36 (a) of plaint as also in terms of compromise set out - Application disposed of.
|
Microsoft Corporation and Another vs Faizal A. and Another
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 17 Mar 2008]
Application filed to record compromise/settlement - Amicable settlement arrived between parties during pendency of suit which was filed against defendants alleging infringement of plaintiffs' copyright in software programme developed by plaintiffs and in particular 'Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002' and 'Microsoft Office 2002' - Defendants acknowledged plaintiffs to be proprietors and owners of copyrights in software programmes and undertook that they will not, in future, sell, offer for sale, distribute, issue to public, any counterfeit/pirated/unlicenced versions of plaintiffs' software or do any other act which would in any other manner amount to infringement of the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights - Application mentioning terms and conditions of settlement signed by both the parties - Held, terms of settlement arrived at between the parties are lawful; compromise / settlement is taken on record - Suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants in terms of the prayer contained in paragraph 36 (a) of plaint as also in terms of compromise set out - Application disposed of.
|
Supercassette Industries vs Nirulas Corner House Private Limited
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 17 Mar 2008]
Copyright Act, 1957 - ss. 2(ff), 14, 51, 52 - Application filed under O. 7, r. 11 for rejection of plaint filed to seek injunction restraining defendant from infringing plaintiff's copyright and application filed under O. 39, rr. 1 and 2 of CPC - Plaintiff alleged that transmission by defendant without licence of audio clippings of songs in which plaintiff owned copyright, using cable connection and extending facilities of television to defendant's patrons in hotel rooms, amounted to infringement of copy right - Plaintiff submitted that such usage amounted to public performance/communication to public of the work, the exclusive rights to which were granted only to the copyright holder or a duly licensed person under the Act - Held, plaintiff has been able to show that the defendants are using cable connection and extending facilities of television to their patrons in the hotel rooms, for payments are received, thus, prima facie, the content of songs and videos broadcast are communications to the public - Plaintiff's right to the titles and video recordings as owner of copyright is alleged, there is material on record to substantiate it - Plaintiff has established strong prima facie case of infringement - Balance of convenience too would be in its favour, since refusal to confirm the injunction would mean the defendant is free to continue infringing the copyright, and profit from it - Application disposed of.
|
Maganlal Savani and Another vs Uttam Chitra and Others
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 14 Mar 2008]
Copyright Act, 1957 - Plaintiffs claimed under Agreements of Assignment sole and exclusive copyright of exploiting, distributing and exhibiting the nine suit films in respect of nine feature films - As per cl. 1 of Agreement plaintiff was given sole, exclusive and perpetual copyrights of exploitation, distribution and exhibition, commercial as well as non-commercial, in respect of the said picture in 35 mm as well as any reduced size or sizes, including the rights of Television, High Seas, Air and all other rights attached to such exploitation, distribution and exhibition of the said picture for the contracted territories and as per c. 4 said Picture was not be exploited or distributed or exhibited commercially, non-commercially or in any other manner whatsoever, in the Contracted Territory - Defendant no.5, who claimed copyright, submitted that rights granted to the Plaintiffs were for exhibition of films for communication to public as defined by Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act - Held, right conferred upon the First Plaintiff under the Agreement of Assignment cannot be restricted only to communication to the public; clause (1) of the Agreements which entitles the Plaintiffs to exploit the films is not restricted to communication to the public - S. 14(1)(d) of the Copyright Act would prima facie indicate that the entire bundle of rights is subject to exploitation by the Plaintiffs - Copyright is a right in property; each infringement furnishes a distinct and separate cause of action - Plaintiffs are not guilty of delay and latches and that due and necessary steps were taken for the protection of their rights - Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief; there is, prima facie, a valid and subsisting assignment of copyrights in favour of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit films - Application disposed of.
|
Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Limited and Another vs R.B. Impex and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 05 Mar 2008]
Designs Act, 2000 - Applications filed u/s. 22(4) of Designs Act and u/s. 151 CPC to stay proceedings pending before Controller of Design for cancellation of designs of plaintiffs and also for transfer of those proceedings to High Court - Held, there is no provision u/s. 22 for transferring proceedings pending before Controller to High Court - Since High Court is the Court of Appeal for deciding whether design was rightly cancelled by Controller, Legislature thought it proper that issue of cancellation of designs pending before District Court should be decided by High Court - Plaintiffs cannot take support of s. 22(4) for staying proceedings pending before Controller or for withdrawal of proceedings from Controller to High Court; neither there is provision of staying of proceedings before Controller as was available u/s. 111 of old Trade Mark Act - Application dismissed.
|
Marc Enterprises Private Limited vs Five Star Electricals(India) and Another
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 04 Mar 2008]
Trademark Act, 1999 - Suit filed u/ss. 134 and 135 of Trademark Act, 1999 as well as u/s. 51 of Copyrights Act, 1957 to seek permanent injunction against defendant alleging therein that defendant was infringing the trademark and logo of plaintiff viz 'Marc' - Plaintiff pleaded that it was registered proprietor of trademark in Class '9', and defendant was also a registered proprietor of same trademark for Class '9', but since plaintiff's trademark was registered earlier in time, defendant should be restrained from manufacturing the goods - Held, if plaintiff had been manufacturing the same items as were being manufactured by defendant, plaintiff would have a case, however, plaintiff is not manufacturing the goods which were being manufactured by defendant; even if the plaintiff has got the trademark registered for a class of items, the plaintiff was not using this trademark for the goods which were being manufactured by the defendant and the defendant, therefore, cannot be restrained from being using the trademark 'Marc' for the goods manufactured by it - Plaintiff has failed to show that it has a prima facie case that the defendant was copying its trademark and logo; style and logo of circle with 'M' was not at all there in the literature of defendant and trademark 'MARC' was also written in different style and manner; defendant was neither marketing nor manufacturing the goods being marketed/manufactured by the plaintiff; defendant was registered proprietor of the trademark 'MARC' for the goods being manufactured by it; word 'MARC' was not a coined word or invention of the plaintiff - Applications dismissed.
|
Shand Pipe Industries Limited vs Hind Mosaic and Cement Works and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Mar 2008]
Patents Act - Single Judge held that invention was not patentable - By the impugned order interim relief has been granted by the Division Bench - Appeal against - Held, Division Bench has not analized the scheme of the Patents Act, particularly in the context of s. 13 (4) r/w ss. 47 and 48, particularly the effect of counter claim - This analysis was important as the Division Bench was required to consider the effect of the registration of the patent - Remitted the matter to High Court.
|
Maison Bouchard Pere Et Fils vs Bouchardpereetfils.Com/ Domain Administration
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 03 Mar 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesThe Complainant is Maison Bouchard Pere et Fils, of Beaune, France, represented by Ernest Gutmann - Yves Plasseraud S.A.S, France.The Respondent is Bouchardpereetfils.Com/ Domain
|
L'Oreal vs Simmi and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 03 Mar 2008]
Application for review of order passed in infringement of trademarks suit wherein court invoked provisions of O. 8, r. 10 CPC on absence of defendants in court and passed decree for injunction and also for damages and costs - Applicant put blame on counsels engaged by them - Held, defendants have not set up case that any written statement was signed by them and not filed; defendants, thus, neither appeared nor filed any written statement - Defendants could not have assumed that without any defence being sought before Court, they would be entitled to a defence - Defendants cannot plead ignorance of law - No apparent error on face of record and application is barred by time - Application dismissed.
|
Lahari Recording Company Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director vs (1) Music Master Audio Video Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Represented By Its Director, Ghanshyam; (2) Raja Music Universal, Represented By Its Partner R.Jeevaraja, Chennai; (3) Bharat Film Distributors, Represented By Its Managing Partner M.S.Guhan, Chennai; (4) Master Recording Company, Chennai; (5) S.Eknath, Proprietor, Eknath Audio, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 03 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL1. This Original Side Appeal is preferred by the appellant/5th defendant as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned single Judge on 07.03.2001 in C.S.No.385 of 1998.2. The
|
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG vs Eugene and Privacyprotect.Org
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 29 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesThe Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, of Basel, Switzerland, represented internally.The Respondent is Eugene, of Moscow, Russian Federation and PrivacyProtect.org.
|
(1) Wipro Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Represented By Its Legal Manager, Vishal Mittal, Chennai; (2) Wipro Chandrika Limited, Doddakannelli, Represented By Its Authorised Signatory, Vishal Mittal vs (1) Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India Private Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director, K.S. Kochumon, Irinjalakuda; (2) Oushadha Chandrika Research Centre, Irinjalakuda; (3) Narayana Stores, Jaihind Market Building, Thrissur
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 29 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE A. P. SHAH (CJ)1. Appeals admitted.2. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals were finally heard and are being disposed of by this judgment. The issue in these appeals
|
Accolo, Inc vs St. Kitts Registry
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 28 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesThe Complainant is Accolo, Inc., Larkspur, California, United States of America, represented by The Moore Law Group, United States of America.The Respondent is St. Kitts Registry, of
|
Deceuninck N vs William Vaughan, Smtm Investments Limited
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 27 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesComplainant is Deceuninck NV, Belgium, represented by Baker & McKenzie CVBA, Belgium.Respondent is William Vaughan, smtm investments ltd, Australia.2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe
|
Alfa Laval AB and Alfa Laval Corporate AB vs Alfalava.Com
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 26 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesComplainant is Alfa Laval AB and Alfa Laval Corporate AB, of Lund, Sweden, represented by Advokatbyran Gulliksson AB, Sweden.Respondent is Alfalava.com, c/o whois IDentity Shield, of
|
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG vs Activeideas.Com, Jason Peterson
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 26 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesComplainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland, represented internally.Respondent is ActiveIdeas.com, Jason Peterson, Quaker Hill, Connecticut, United States of America.2.
|
Boutique Tristan and Iseut Inc vs B and B
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 26 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesThe Complainant is Boutique Tristan & Iseut Inc. of Canada, represented by Leger Robic Richard, s.e.n.c., Canada.The Respondent is B & B of United States of America, represented by John
|
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG vs Romeo Daniel
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 25 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesThe Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, of Switzerland, internally represented.The Respondent is romeo daniel, of Romania.2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
|
Finderbinder vs Adminstrator, Domain / Namia
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 25 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesComplainant is Finderbinder, Spain, represented internally.Respondent is Adminstrator, Domain / Namia, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
|
Deutsche Telekom AG vs Domain Investments LLC
[WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER, 25 Feb 2008]
The Administrative Panel Decision was as follows :1. The PartiesComplainant is Deutsche Telekom AG, of Bonn, Germany, represented by Lovells, Germany.Respondent is Domain Investments LLC, of Florida, United States of America.2. The Domain Names and
|
|