Skip to content


K.Subash Chandra Bose Vs. Ch. Dhanumjaya Rao and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided On

Case Number

C.O.D. No.6/08 in S.R. NO.15/08/TM-IPAB

Judge

Appellant

K.Subash Chandra Bose

Respondent

Ch. Dhanumjaya Rao and Another

Excerpt:


.....appellant and learned counsel shri s. balachandran appeared for the respondent no.1. we have heard both the counsel. 5. we are of the view that the appellants can be given an opportunity to have the appeal heard on merits in the interest of justice. on perusal of the impugned order, there were some issues raised by the respondents and the applicant requested for time to clarify the same and the registrar had granted an opportunity to the appellant herein. in our opinion based on the above reason, we think it fit to grant an opportunity to the appellant. however, the delay can be condoned by imposing a cost, keeping in mind the opposite party. 6. we, therefore, condone the delay on payment of cost of rs.2000/- to the respondent no.1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. the appellant is directed to file a copy of the acknowledgement of payment of costs in the registry of this appellate board. on receipt of the same, the registry is directed to number the appeal. accordingly, the condone delay application is allowed on the above terms.

Judgment:


HON'BLE Ms.S.USHA, TECHNICAL MEMBER:

Application to condone the delay of 26 days under section 91(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The application was filed as the delay was due to the reason that there were exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the attorneys and there were some documents needed to establish their case which took time to be collected. The application, if not allowed, the applicant will be prejudiced and will be put to heavy loss.

2. The respondent No.1 filed their counter denying all the averments made in the application. Respondent No.1 further stated that the delay has not been properly explained and there has been contrary statements made and prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.

3. During the course of the argument, the counsel for respondent No.1 pointed out that though the reason given for the delay was that it took time to collect documents, but on perusal of the appeal papers no new document other than the ones filed before the Registrar have been filed and the application bears no merits.

4. The matter was taken up for hearing on 16.4.2009 wherein learned counsel Ms. Aga Arvind appeared for the appellant and learned counsel Shri S. Balachandran appeared for the respondent No.1. We have heard both the counsel.

5. We are of the view that the appellants can be given an opportunity to have the appeal heard on merits in the interest of justice. On perusal of the impugned order, there were some issues raised by the respondents and the applicant requested for time to clarify the same and the Registrar had granted an opportunity to the appellant herein. In our opinion based on the above reason, we think it fit to grant an opportunity to the appellant. However, the delay can be condoned by imposing a cost, keeping in mind the opposite party.

6. We, therefore, condone the delay on payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to the respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant is directed to file a copy of the acknowledgement of payment of costs in the Registry of this Appellate Board. On receipt of the same, the Registry is directed to number the appeal. Accordingly, the condone delay application is allowed on the above terms.




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