Appellate Board - Judgment Search Results

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal vs Intelectual Property Appellate Board and Anr

Court: Delhi

APPLELLATE BOARD AND ANR .....Respondents AND + W.P.(C)-IPD 69/2021 & CM APPL. 3712/2017 RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL .....PetitionerVersusINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ANR .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner : Mr. Varun Dhingra & Ms. … in the Rectification Applications. 2.12 Respondent No. 2 had filed the Rectification Applications firstly before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board Chennai (“Chennai Board”) and thereafter, the Rectification Applications were transferred to Respondent No. 1. It was only on

Kalpaka Builders Private Limited vs Intellectual Property Appellate Bo ...

Court: Kerala

BUILDING, DESHABHIMANI JUNCTION, KALOOR, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.M.V.SUNIT. BY ADV. SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN RESPONDENTS:1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD GUNA COMPLEX, ANNEXURE 1, 2ND FLOOR, 443, ANNASALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-600 018. 2 THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS TRADEMARK OFFICE, … the 11th day of January, 2024The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, cancelling the trademark registration granted to the petitioner under No.1374072 in class 37 and remanding the matter to

The Travancore Mats vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Court: Kerala

S/O.K.VELAYUDHAN, POST BOX NO 5, CHERTHALA - 688 524 BY ADVS. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.R.UMASANKAR RESPONDENTS : 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD, GUNA COMPLEX, ANNEX 1, 2ND FLOOR, 443, ANNASALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018 2 THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS,

Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intellectual Property App ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad196

the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai. It was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Board that in the facts as … 1999 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai. It was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Board that in the facts as narrated above, the opposition had been filed within the prescribed extended time along

Schering-plough Ltd. Vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board and anr ...

Court: Chennai

have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (in short Appellate Board). The Appellate Board dismissed the condonation petition by stating that the affidavit filed in … counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (in short Appellate Board). The Appellate Board dismissed the condonation petition by stating that the affidavit filed in support of the delay

Ammini Karnan Vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Court: Chennai

as M/s K.K.R. Modern Rice Mills Okkal Post, Kalady, Ernakulam, Kerala-683 550 .. Petitioner Vs 1. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, 2nd Floor, Annexure-I, Guna Complex, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-18 rep by it s Deputy Registrar 2. The … in favour of the applicant/third respondent.8. Aggrieved, in May 2005, an appeal was preferred before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Board", by the applicant/third respondent. Meanwhile, a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2005 was

Creative Tours and Travels (India) Private Limited Vs. Intellectual Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

the order passed on 26th November 2012 by Respondent No.1. 2. By the impugned order, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, (IPAB), has passed an order on Miscellaneous Petition Nos.232 and 233 of 2012 in the case of an … be suppressed by the law. We have, therefore, been taken through Chapter-I containing preliminary provisions, including definitions. The Appellate Board, which has passed the impugned order, is a Board established under Section 83. Prior thereto, we must see

T.K. Govindaraju Pillai Vs. Foreign Exchange Appellate Board

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1996(81)ELT478(Mad)

of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order of the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board in Appeal No. 365 of 1978. In and by the said order, the Appellate Court rejected an appeal … against the original order even though filed after a period of 45 days, provided he can satisfy the Appellate Board that he had sufficient cause to condone the delay. The period of delay that could be condoned was

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and ors.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: 1984(3)ECC69; 1985(21)ELT367(P& H)

in Show Cause Notice No. T-4/6-J/80 SCN III, dated 30-12-1980.'2. On appeal by the Director of Enforcement, the Appellate Board affirmed the said findings of the adjudicating officer and thus maintained the order of acquittal passed by him. … that these proceedings are in the nature of quasi-criminal proceedings as has rightly been adverted to by the Appellate Board. Under the criminal law, this Court is empowered to set aside acquittal and order re-trial. On that parity

Mehar Singh Vs. the Appellate Board Foreign Exchange

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes561; 1986(10)DRJ19

Regulation Act, 1973, challenging the legality of the order dated 15th February, 1975, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board whereby the order of the Director of Enforcement finding the appellant guilty of contravening the provisions of Section … decided on the short ground that the appellant's applications made to the Director of Enforcement and before the Appellate Board during the pendency of the appeal to summon four witnesses for cross-examination, were not dealt with by the