Dr. Anoop Varghese Vs. the Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Ipr Building and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

sooperkanoon.com/1117866

Court	Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided On	Jul-14-2009
Case Number	M.P.No.2/2009 in TRA/10/08/PT/CH & TRA/10/08/PT/CH & M.P.No.1/2009 in TRA/9/08/PT/CH & TRA/9/08/PT/CH
Judge	Hon'Ble Ms. S. Usha, Vice- Chairman &Amp; HonâBle Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member
Appellant	Dr. Anoop Varghese
Respondent	The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Ipr Building and Another

Excerpt:

hon'ble ms. s. usha, vice-chairman: both the counsel present. counsel for applicant represents that he has no instructions from the applicant. as per directions of this board, registry had issued notice to the applicant and the same has been served on him. in spite of service, applicant has not appeared before this board. hence the rectification application is treated as abandoned as per rule 17(2) of the intellectual property appellate board (procedure) rules, 2003. . as the main rectification application has been dismissed, mp no.2/2009 does not survive.

Judgment:

HON'BLE MS. S. USHA, VICE-CHAIRMAN:

Both the counsel present. Counsel for applicant represents that he has no instructions from the applicant. As per directions of this Board, Registry had issued notice to the applicant and the same has been served on him. In spite of service, applicant has not appeared before this Board. Hence the rectification application is treated as abandoned as per rule 17(2) of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003. . As the main rectification application has been dismissed, MP No.2/2009 does not survive.