Back
P. B. BALAJI
R. Arun – Appellant
Versus
Integray Health Care Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
(P.B. Balaji, J.)
(Prayer: Original Petition has been filed for Design Cancellation from the Register under Section 19 read with Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000, to cancel the Registration of the first respondent, which was granted by the 4 th respondent on February 9th 2024, being the Design No.400027-001.)
The Original Petition has been filed to cancel the Registration of the first respondent, which was granted by the 4 th respondent on February 9th 2024, being the Design No.400027-001.
2. Since the maintainability of this Original Petition would have to be decided first, notice was issued to the official respondent/R4 on 17.04.2024 by this Court.
3. I have heard Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Subburanga Bharathi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy would submit that the above Original Petition is maintainable before this Court. He would fortify his submission in this regard by stating that the Designs Act, 2000 (in short 'Act') is not a complete code by itself and it refers to the Patents Act, 1970. Further, he would submit that there is no e
The Designs Act, 2000 mandates that cancellation petitions must be filed with the Controller, not the High Court, thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters.
Jurisdiction under the Designs Act, 2000 cannot be ousted merely on basis of cancellation pleas unless substantive grounds are presented, justifying transfer to higher courts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a counter claim seeking cancellation of registered designs under Section 19 of the Designs Act.
Prior publication must be proven with tangible evidence; foreign registration alone does not invalidate a design registered in India.
The presumption of receipt under Rule 3 establishes that an application is deemed filed when sent, and overlapping claims in design and trademark are permissible for registration.
The court clarified the distinction between copyright and design protection, emphasizing that the determination of whether a work qualifies as a design or an artistic work requires a detailed examina....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
