M/S. GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITED versus RECKITT BENCKISER AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. AND ANR.

M/S. GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITED versus RECKITT BENCKISER AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. AND ANR.

Under the Designs Act, 2000, appeals against orders of the Controller cancelling designs must be made to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the order was passed, i.e., Calcutta High Court in this case; Delhi High Court erred in assuming jurisdiction as the cause of action was the Controller's order at Kolkata,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: M/S. Godrej Sara Lee Limited; Respondent No. 1: Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd.; Respondent No. 2: Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Delhi High Court in FAO Nos. 131 and 132 of 2008
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned order of Delhi High Court set aside
Legal Topics
Designs Act—jurisdiction of High Courts, Cancellation of Registered Design, Appellate Jurisdiction Under Designs Act 2000
Intellectual Property Designs Act—jurisdiction of High Courts Cancellation of Registered Design Appellate Jurisdiction Under Designs Act 2000

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. Godrej Sara Lee Limited

Appellant

Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd.

Respondent No. 1

Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Delhi High Court in FAO Nos. 131 and 132 of 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by Controller of Designs, Kolkata under s. 19(1) Designs Act, 2000
  2. 2 Effect of distinction between Designs Act, 1911 and Designs Act, 2000 on appellate jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Under the Designs Act, 2000, appeals against orders of the Controller cancelling designs must be made to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the order was passed, i.e., Calcutta High Court in this case; Delhi High Court erred in assuming jurisdiction as the cause of action was the Controller's order at Kolkata, not the impact in any particular State.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned order of Delhi High Court set aside

Orders

  • Delhi High Court proceedings quashed
  • Appellant granted leave to move Calcutta High Court against cancellation within 30 days