Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.M. SUNDRESH, J
not specified – Appellant
Versus
not specified – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definition and scope of designs under the designs act, 2000. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. prohibition of registration of certain designs and grounds for cancellation. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. certificate of registration does not equate to validity of a design. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. functionality consideration in design law and passing off. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. arguments regarding passing off and design infringement. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. court's dismissal of applications due to lack of prima facie case. (Para 16) |
1. Pending the suit for permanent injunction, these two applications in O.A.Nos.814 and 815 of 2016 have been filed seeking temporary ones on the basis of infringement of a registered design and passing off. Seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, A.No.4773 of 2016 has been filed.
2. Heard Mr. P. S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. T. K. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel for Mr. M. S. Bharath, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents and written submissions filed.
3. Before going into the issues governing the case, it would be appropriate to deal with the provisions and the principles of law. Aprop
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
