Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... be given an opportunity of personal hearing by the committee." 7. the counsel submitted that in the present case there is no voids in the patent act and section 25(4) is clear and unambiguous. it is therefore submitted that that appeal should not be remanded back to the learned assistant controller. 8. the counsel ..... be heard, then without a hearing, and after taking into consideration of the opposition boards recommendations shall give his decision upon the opposition. therefore section 25 of the act and rule 56 and rule 62 of the rules together clearly indicate that the recommendations of the opposition board is an important document which is taken ..... explanation, even then the proposed amended claims are outside the scope of the original claims. he further contended that the amendment do not satisfy the requirement of section 59 of the act. he stipulates that the following must be satisfied before an amendment is granted: (a) the amendment can only be by way of disclaimer, correction and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... mark is registered or the patent is granted, then the person aggrieved is entitled to file a rectification application under section 57 of the trade marks act or revocation application under section 64 of the act patents act, 1970. the law relating to stay and injunction will not allow such a person to claim the balance of convenience ..... ptc 806) the honble delhi high court held that the power to grant an injunction is conspicuous by its absence. the provisions of the specific relief act, 1963 viz., section 41(b) was referred to and it was submitted that if stay is granted a suit for infringement cannot be filed. in manohar lal chopra vs. ..... that required determination was whether the tribunal had authority to issue interim order of injunction and exparte orders. it was contended before the tribunal that section 16 (2) trai act refers to original jurisdiction and the power to grant injunction is not incorporated and that the legislature having mentioned clearly the procedural issues, it would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... may be prescribed the provision for the procedure relating to review prescribed under rule 23 is to be necessarily understood as the powers of the ipab vested under section 92(2) of the act. as held by the supreme court in sampathkumar case if ipab has to be a real substitute for the high court not only dejure and in form but ..... confers such power on this board to review its own order or decision in spite of rule 23. rule 23 has been framed only by this board under section 92 of t.m.act. there has been no challenge to its validity until now and so it stands as a valid rule which is part of the statute. so this issue before ..... side and the appellate jurisdiction exercised by the said courts were vested with the ipab and all pending matters were transferred vide section 100 (as amended) of the t. m. act, 1999 and section 117-g of the patents act, 1970 (1970 act in short). the power to correct the error apparent on the face of the record etc., must be understood to continue since .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... order or morality or to protect human, plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment which had already been ensured by the act by section 3(b). sub-paragraph 3 of article 27 also permitted exclusion from patentability of technological, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or ..... different possible salts of imatinib which were not prepared before. the principle of selection patent was adopted by courts which also was found mentioned under section 3(d) act. he referred to, and read out some relevant paragraphs of an article by julian jeffs published in 1988 in the european intellectual property review ..... from imatinib, and ii) preparation of the beta crystal form of imatinib mesylate from imatinib mesylate. challenging the refusal of the application under section 3(d) of the act, shri bhushan argued that the appellant with human intervention and ingenuity in research had selected methanesulfonic acid addition salt of imatinib in a particular form .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... , section 16, section 17, section 18, section 19, section 20, section 25, section 27, section 28, section 51, section 54, section 57, section 60, section 61, section 63, sub-section (3) of section 69, section 78, section 84, section 86, section 88 (3), section 89, section 93, section 96 and section 97. therefore, any party aggrieved under section 25(1) also would have the option to go for appeal to the honble high court under the above section 116(2) of the principal act, until these sections 60 ..... no. cic/wb/a/2006/00274 of ms. vishaish uppal vs shri kamal dayani, cpio. pmo dated 31/5/06 before central information commission under the right to information act, 2005 section 19 the facts and decision are: chief information commissioner held that a decision by an appellate authority after issue of a notice and after a full hearing, in presence of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... of the respondent no.1 has acquired a secondary meaning in respect of its products and also the registration of the mark applied for is barred under sections 9, 11, 12 and 18 of the act. 3. the appellant filed the counter-statement on 7.6.2006 and the respondent no.1 filed evidence in support of opposition and a copy thereof ..... and within the prescribed time to the registrar, and the registrar shall give an opportunity to them to be heard, if they so desire. section 131 of the act, which deal with the extension of time for doing any act reads as under:- 131. extension of time.- (1) if the registrar is satisfied, on application made to him in the prescribed manner and ..... fee before the expiry of the period of two months mentioned therein. 105. extension of time.- (1) an application for extension of time under section 131 (not being a time expressly provided in the act or prescribed under rule 79 or by sub-rule (4) of rule 80 or a time for the extension of which provision is made in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... ltd.s case (supra), the apex court while considering the expression likely to deceive or cause confusion, occurring in section 8 of the trade marks act, 1940 (section 11 of the act), held as under:- under this section an application made to register a trade mark which is likely to deceive or to cause confusion has to be ..... respective purchasers being people engaged in industry and people at large dealing with domestic appliances, the respondent no.1 is entitled to registration under sub-section (3) of section 12 of the act. referring to the judgment of division bench of delhi high court in osram gesellschaft mitbeschrankter haftung v. shyam sunder and ors., 2002 iv ad ..... impugned order appealed against especially when the appeal was remanded back was not on the sole ground that no findings were given under the above mentioned sections of the act. hence, the impugned order dated 11.6.2001 is passed without application of mind and also without having the original application file of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... first in the market are the proprietors of the mark and the appellants who are subsequent adopters, cannot claim to be the proprietors under section 18 of the act. therefore, the objection under section 18 of the act also sustains. 24. having negated all the pleas of the appellant and as we also do not find any infirmity in the order of ..... the notice of opposition had already been filed. when the same was brought to the notice of the registrar of trade marks, a notice under sub-section (4) of section 56 of the act was issued to both the parties on 05.08.1996 and after a hearing was held, on 09.02.1998 the assistant registrar had passed an ..... and marks being identical, there was every possibility of confusion being caused among the public and the registration, if granted would be in contravention of the provisions of section 11 of the act. 19. the observations made in daimler benz aktiegesellschaft and anr. vs. hybo hindustan reported in air 1994 delhi 239 that if a globally well known mark .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... powers to decide the validity of the registration when the suit is pending before a civil court. in this regard, it is worth quoting the provisions of section 125 of the act. 125. application for rectification of register to be made to appellate board in certain cases.- (1) where in a suit for infringement of a registered trade ..... treating the non citation of the unregistered trade mark no.1733591 as conflicting mark in the examination report, as the ground of rectification being in violation of section 11 of the act; (c) that the appellant has already filed the suit for infringement of this registered trade mark suhana against the respondent before the honble high court and ..... through the website of the trade mark registry. 6. the trade mark registry issued a show cause notice to the appellant on 26.09.2011 under section 57 (4) of the act, 1999. the operative part of the notice reads as and whereas erroneously the trade mark under application no.1733591 was not cited as conflicting mark. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... raising the plea that the assignment in favour of the appellant is not valid, the said partner ought to have filed an application as prescribed under section 56(1) of the act. in the absence of the application in the prescribed form, the registrar ought not to have initiated any proceeding for rectification. 3. the registrar has ..... in the register, depending upon the genuineness of the information, using his discretion, it is open to him to initiate suo-motu proceedings under section 56(4) of the act. if any application under section 56(1) is filed, the registrar has no discretion, but to initiate the proceedings by issue of notices. in this case, though it ..... ground that the appellant cannot be a valid assignee in respect of the products mentioned in the assignment deed as it is contrary to the terms of section 39 of the act. hence, there is absolutely no infirmity in the order of the registrar calling for any interference by this appellate board. 8. we have carefully considered .....
Tag this Judgment!