siddharth
19 January 2015 at 22:12
Two of my colleague and I designed a product at the firm in which we are working. We expect to get no equity and no influence in the running of the firm. It would be better to quit and develop the product ourselves. No NDA, Non-compete or any such document has been signed. The employment letter has no clauses pertaining to 'company information'
1. Most of the designs were made on a colleague'ss personal computer as the firm's computers could not run the software required. So who has the rights on the material developed on that computer?
2. If we do undertake to start on our own, can we face legal issues about 'idea stealing'? The design would be different but the utility part cannot be changed.
Aditya Agarwal
19 January 2015 at 16:15
Does the scope of goods and services increases from the application in the country of Origin, when we apply under 44D and 1b (Intent to Use) under the US Trademark ??
For reference I am providing the Link (Read the third paragraph). http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/mashup/html/page/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-1400d1e2049.xml#TMEP-1400d1e2049
SAYARA IQBAL
18 January 2015 at 23:20
Dear Sir/Madam,
Good Day
Please find attached file.
Please help us to solve our problem.
Thanks and best regards.
SayaraIqbal
Mumbai.
Aditya Agarwal
13 January 2015 at 14:34
I have applied for Trademark in various classes at different times in the Country of Origin(India). Now I want to register it Internationally through Madrid Protocol. I will apply for all the classes in a single application. Now my question is, suppose if I am rejected some of the Classes in the the Country of Origin (India), does my entire international application gets rejected or I am rejected in the classes in which I have been rejected in the Country of Origin or do I get an international registration irrespective of the rejection faced in the country of origin.????? please help.
kunhi marakkar
09 January 2015 at 09:53
recently my friend came to know that his name fully not mentioned in a sale deed of his property. only surname written in this deed.the seller already died.deed is executed before 5 year.now he want to get a property loan upon this deed.but bank officiels rejected his application due to said mistake.how can he rectify this problem?
Aditya Agarwal
06 January 2015 at 13:27
I want to file trademark applications in several classes? Is it advisable to apply under "in -use" rather than "intention to use"? Does the chances increases when applied under "in-use" ?
Hitesh Puri
05 January 2015 at 16:06
Hi,
I am leaving in the house which is in name of my Grand-Father, my mother & father passed away 5 years back. Now i looking to reconstruct my house which is name of my Grand Father, before that i want to make this on my name do i need "register will" for this?
Pls. suggest thanks.
meena jain
31 December 2014 at 10:59
good morning to all of you here sir,
i need your urgent advice on this matter of land acquired in xxx act of 1952 so called R.A.I.P act of 1952 land lying vacant not used for the purpose acquired in year 1953 and compensation not paid till date..sir we were fighting for fair compensation and after we found the misuse of land and public purpose challenged in arbitration proceedings and intend to file a writ in high court as per arbitrator direction now i wud like to know what shud be my plan of action challenge acqusition proceedings or claim compensation as per the new amendment in the land acqusition act as requsition and acqusition of immovable property act which was kept outside of this act including other 13 acts has been brought under one umberella and compensation and rehabilitation wud apply same on this requsition and acqusition of immovable property act also so seek your expert opinion sir i am ready to pay your professional fees i need expert quidance sir below is the detailed fact sheet of the case.
FACT SHEET abt land acquired in r.a,i,p act 1952 compensation not paid yet.
Dates
Events
The Claimants were owners of freehold plot of land situated at Marol Village bearing No.R.S.140/3, 140/9, 141/12, 141/16 admeasuring about 7511 ¼ sq.ft. (hereinafter referred for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said property”) and were enjoying the peaceful possession of the said land till the year 1942.
01.07.1942
Respondent No.3 vide its Order No.WAR 26 and exercising the powers conferred by Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 75A of Defence of India Rules, read with Notification of the Government of India, Defence Coordination Department No.1336/OR/1/42 dated 25.04.1942 requisitioned the said property of the Claimants and directed to deliver the possession of the same to Military Estate Officer subject to certain terms and conditions.
09.04.1953
Respondent No.1 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said Act”) vide Notice No.WAR 26, 31, 61 and 180 compulsorily acquired the said property.
As a dispute had arisen between the parties with respect to the quantum of compensation payable to the Claimants, Respondent No.1 referred the matter to Arbitration and under Section 8(1)(b) of the said Act Mr. M.M. Shah was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitration case was numbered as 5/1960.
09.08.1964
Arbitrator decided the matter and the Award made therein came to be filed before Junior Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay.
Aggrieved by the Award passed in Arbitration proceedings, the Claimants preferred an Appeal against the Award before Hon’ble High Court at Bombay being Appeal No.183/1966 challenging the decision of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on various grounds.
17.10.1974
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court was pleased to allow the Appeal and was pleased to set aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator, Mr. Shah and further held that the Government will have to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act for determining the compensation to be payable to the Claimants. If the parties fail to determine the compensation, then in that case, Central Government shall appoint an Arbitrator as contemplated in Section 8 of the said Act for determining the quantum of compensation to be paid to the Claimants.
There was an inordinate delay on part of the Respondents in complying with the Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966. The Claimants pursued the matter diligently. However, the Respondents failed to discharge their duties as provided under the said Act.
24.07.1981
The Claimants sent a letter through their Advocate calling upon the Respondents to comply with the Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966.
15.01.1982
Officer of the Respondent No.3 after many months replied thereby informing the Claimants that he has forwarded a copy of the said Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966 to the Asstt. Engineer, Airport Maintenance, Sub-Division II, IAA-I, Mumbai and was awaiting reply for initiating further action on the part of Respondent No.3.
18.10.1982
The Officer of Respondent No.3 asked the Claimants to file a compensation claim in respect of the land acquired to enable his office to take further action in the said matter.
07.06.1985
The Officer of Respondent No.3 vide its letter to Asstt. Director of Town Planning called upon him to submit Valuation Report to enable him to fix the compensation in accordance with the directions given by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966.
In between there was no response from the Respondents for almost 6 years and there was no progress made for fixing adequate compensation to be paid to the Claimants.
18.09.1991
The Claimants through their Advocates again reminded the Respondent No. 3 about the compulsory acquisition of the said property, Arbitral proceedings and the Order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183/1966 and thereby called upon the Office of the Collector to pay compensation as directed by the Court and to take further steps towards the same.
29.10.1991
The Officer of Respondent No.3 in reply asked for the concerned Land Acquisition Officer and further asked the Claimants to state the purpose for which the said property was acquired to enable his office to issue the instructions to the particular Special Land Acquisition Officer.
10.06.1998
The Special Land Acquisition Officer asked the Claimants to supply Notice or a copy of the Award or receipt of handing over possession sent by his Department and any communication made by his office relevant to the matter implying thereby that he had not been able to locate the papers in the said matter.
03.04.1999
The Claimants’ Advocate by his letter communicated the necessary details relating to the acquisition of the said property in question to Respondent No.3 and the Asstt. Town Planning Officer of the Special Land Acquisition Office.
18.06.1999
The Officer of Respondent No.3 asked the Revenue Officer of Respondent No.2 for its remarks upon the Valuation Report prepared by Asstt. Director of Town Planning Department and further informed the Claimants that the Respondent No.2 was responsible for inordinate delay occasioned and the said matter is pending for early payment.
09.07.1999 & 22.11.1999
The Claimants through their Advocate sent reminders bringing to the knowledge of Respondent No.2 that the matter has been delayed due to inaction as pointed out by Respondent No.3.
20.12.1999
The Officer of Respondent No.3 further sent a reminder informing Respondent No. 2 that the matter of compensation payable to the Claimants has been delayed at the latter’s end and the papers asked for by the Respondent No.2 had already been forwarded to the Respondent No.3.
14.01.2000
The Senior Land Manager of Respondent No.2 informed the Claimants that the compensation payable in respect of the said property was being paid by Land Acquisition Officer / Collector and that the Respondent No.2 was not in charge of the same. Further the Claimants are advised to approach State Government for the payments.
03.06.2000 & July 2000
The Claimants informed the Senior Land Manager of the Respondent No.2 that the State Land Acquisition Officer required the Agreement between the owner of the land acquired and the Acquiring Body so that compensation could be paid to the Claimants.
05.07.2000
Respondent No.2 directed the Claimants to approach concerned Land Acquisition Officer of the State Government.
30.09.2005
As enormous delay was caused in the matter, the Claimants were constrained to send another legal Notice to the Respondents through their Advocates requesting them to pay compensation within 15 days of the receipt of the Notice, failing which, they will be constrained to take appropriate legal proceedings against the Respondents. However, to the shock and surprise, neither of the Respondents replied to the said Notice nor did they take any steps towards the payment of compensation to the Claimants.
As all the remedies were exhausted by the Claimants and the Respondents miserably failed to discharge their duties, the Claimants were forced to file a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No.182 of 2006 praying for compensation to be paid to the Claimants in accordance with the Order dated 17.10.1974 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.183 of 1966.
31.03.2006
By Order of Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court directed the Respondent No.3 to decide upon the quantum of compensation within 8 weeks therefrom and communicate the same to the Claimants. Further it was directed that if the parties fail to come to the agreement about the quantum of compensation, the Respondent No.3 would refer the matter to Respondent No.1, who would within a period of 8 weeks thereafter appoint an Arbitrator as contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act to adjudicate and decide the quantum of compensation to be paid to the Claimants.
19.04.2006
The Officer of Respondent No.3 passed a very cryptic order and proposed to pay to the Claimants a paltry compensation for the acquisition of the said property at the rate of Rs.3.60 per meter thereby total amount of compensation awarded was Rs.22,308.30 and solatium at the rate of 15% of the compensation i.e. Rs.3,346.25 was also offered to be paid to the Claimants. The total compensation offered to the Claimants was Rs.25,654.55.
05.05.2006
The Claimants through their Advocate replied addressing to the Secretary to the Government of Revenue and Forest Department and Respondent No. 3 stating that the proposed compensation amount was not acceptable on the grounds contained therein.
11.07.2006
The Director of Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, communicated to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) that the Claimants were not agreeable to the compensation amount, which was offered and/or proposed by Respondent No.3 and therefore, requested for appointment of an Arbitrator as directed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
20-12-2012
The Claimants have in the Arbitration proceedings realized and observed that the lands acquired belonging to the Petitioner are lying vacant and remined unsued for the purpose it was occupied.
In the arbitration proceeding, Claimants have by way of amendment has sought for de-notification of lands and also for return of lands back to the petitioners as the Petitioners lands are not used for the purpose of Extension of Santacruz Aerodrome, Mumbai in the the alternative to pass an Award in favour of the Claimants for Rs.1,88,000/-, Rs.5,59,90,660.45 & Rs.1,68,53,598.13 in lieu of the market value of the said property in the year 1953 with the interest and solatium on the said compensation from the year 1953 till the date of Award.
20-3-2014
The Ld. Arbitration Tribunal has passed an order directing the Petitioners to get an order for the relief’e of de-notification of lands and also for return of lands back from High Court by filing appropriate proceedings/writ petition for the same.
In the facts, circumstances and under law it is abundantly clear that towards Petitioners land no compensation and award is passed since 1953 till date and also that the lands acquired belonging to the Petitioner are not used for the public purpose of extension of santacruz aerodrome and therefore there is frustration of public policy, Petitioners are entitled to claim back for return of lands illegally acquired by the Respondent for Airport authority.
so we intend to file a writ in mumbai high court for quashing of acqusition proceedings also as now the new land acqusition law has been amended and requsition and acqusition of immovable property act 1952 so called xxx act of 1952,which was kept outside of this act has been brought under this act umberella for compensation...so we whould challenge acqusition proceedings or claim compensation also please suggest us good counsel and advocates in mumbai awaiting eagerly for your valuble suggestions sir,u can also reach me on goldenfish26@gmail.com regards n god bless truely yours meena n rakesh jain
Sumit Agarwal
22 December 2014 at 20:48
Hello there,
I am running a website and publishing interviews on the website...I want to know whether I can publish interview that have been taken on some other website?? I have taken permission from the interviewer...Does Interviewer has the rights or interviewee should also agree to it??
Please reply soon...
Thanks in advance
Regards,
Sumit Agarwal
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
International patent application on computer software
what is the process of filing international application on computer software? if it is not patent able in Indian then why it is necessary to take permission from controller u/s 39 of Indian patent act 1970? what is purpose of section 39?