Year

IP Cases — 1967

4 decisions across all jurisdictions

By jurisdiction: India 4 European UPC 0 US PTAB 0
By type: copyright 2 design 1 trademark 1

Page 1 of 1 · 4 total

copyright plaintiff favorable · Mar 8, 1967

A.V. Meiyappan v.The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Madras High Court · null

A film producer challenged assessments made by the Commercial Taxes Authority, which sought to include payments received from leasing film exploitation rights as taxable sales turnover. The petitioner argued that these were realizations of intangible copyright rights, not sales of goods. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since no sale of goods was involved, the tax and penalty levies were illegal.

design plaintiff favorable · Mar 10, 1967

Western Engineering Co. v.Paul Engineering Co.

Calcutta High Court

The petitioner applied for the revocation of the respondent's cycle lock design (No. 127199) under Section 51-A of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The petitioner argued that their earlier registered design (No. 125728) was prior art and that the respondent's design lacked novelty or originality. After examining the designs, the court found sufficient similarity to allow the application.

trademark defendant favorable · Aug 23, 1967

The Andhra Perfumery Works Joint Family v.Karupakula Suryanarayaniah And Ors.

Madras High Court

The appeals challenged the registration of the 'Ganesh Durbar Bathi' trade mark for Agarbathis. The appellant argued that the word 'GANESH' was common in the trade and had lost distinctiveness, making it publici juris. The court examined evidence regarding the respondent's knowledge and acquiescence.

copyright plaintiff favorable · Mar 8, 1967

A.V. Meiyappan v.Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Madras High Court · W. P. No. 782 of 1966 (and related petitions)

A film producer challenged assessments made by commercial tax authorities who sought to include payments received for leasing exploitation rights of his films as assessable sales turnover. The petitioner argued that these were not sales of goods but realizations of copyrighted rights, falling outside the scope of the Sales Tax Act. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that no sales turnover was involved and thus the tax and penalty levies were illegal.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →