Skip to content


M.S.N. Prasad Vs. Madasiva Prasad, Dhanari Enterprises, Markapur and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided On

Case Number

Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 14 of 2012 & 60 of 2012 in ORA/274 of 2008/TM/CH & ORA/274 of 2008/TM/CH

Judge

Appellant

M.S.N. Prasad

Respondent

Madasiva Prasad, Dhanari Enterprises, Markapur and Others

Excerpt:


.....their sales to west godavari district and they will withdraw all other proceedings in other forums. 9. it is made clear that this agreement between the parties is restricted to class 3 goods, to the mark gemini or its own or along with any other word, for sale only in godavari district. the parties divide their sales in this district between themselves, the applicants taking east godavari district and respondents taking west godavari district. with regard to other districts in the state of andhra pradesh, this order does not apply. if the parties sell their class 3 goods under any other name except gemini and gemini with other words, this order will not apply. the parties understood the implication of this agreement and indicated that they agreed. 10. the rectification application is ordered accordingly.

Judgment:


ORDER (No. 251 of 2012)

PRABHA SRIDEVAN, CHAIRMAN:

1. This is a rectification application filed in respect of word mark GEMINI in application No. 1312060 in class 3 registered in the name of Madasiva Prasad, the respondent herein.

2. According to the applicant, he has been using the mark even prior to the respondent and on the basis of registration in his favour, the respondent is initiating legal proceedings in various courts both criminal and civil.

3. We heard the matter on 15/11/2011 and we had requested the Learned Counsel for the applicant to produce the documents filed in the Ongole District Court to prove the prior user. The Miscellaneous Petition No. 60/2012 has also been filed.

4. But today when the matter came up for hearing, a suggestion was mooted that if the applicant restricted his trade to East Godavari District and the respondent to West Godavari District, there may not be any further dispute. The parties have no objection to each other selling in other districts.

5. The applicant Shri M.S.N. Prasad and his son Mandavalli Mohan are present before us today. On behalf of the respondents Shri Madasiva Prasad is present and Shri Juluru Ganesh, the 2nd respondent is also present.

6. We requested the Learned Counsel and the parties to discuss the matter amongst them. We made it clear that before the Board, the label used by the respondent is not an issue. Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) is only concerned with the word mark.

7. We too explained the matter to both the parties. It appears that the good offices of both the counsels have borne fruit.

8. The applicant agrees that he will restrict his sale to East Godavari District and that he will withdraw the rectification application. Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 agreed that they will restrict their sales to West Godavari District and they will withdraw all other proceedings in other forums.

9. It is made clear that this agreement between the parties is restricted to class 3 goods, to the mark GEMINI or its own or along with any other word, for sale only in Godavari District. The parties divide their sales in this District between themselves, the applicants taking East Godavari District and respondents taking West Godavari District. With regard to other districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, this order does not apply. If the parties sell their class 3 goods under any other name except GEMINI and GEMINI with other words, this order will not apply. The parties understood the implication of this agreement and indicated that they agreed.

10. The rectification application is ordered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //