Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... and is recognized with the applicants source alone. in fact the applicants trade mark has become well known within the meaning of the provisions of section 2 (1)(zg) and section 11 of the act. 6. the impugned trade mark ranator of the respondent is identical and deceptively similar to the applicants said trade mark in each and every ..... rectification is to see if the applicant is a person aggrieved and has the locus standi to file an application for rectification. as per the provisions of section 21 of the act, any person may file an opposition to the registration of the trade marks, whereas an aggrieved person alone can file an application for rectification. 28. ..... for some advertisement materials. so advertisement alone cannot be considered to be use of the trade mark. 31. the other issue is as to registration under section 9 of the act. the trade mark ranator has no obvious meaning and has no direct reference to the character or quality of goods in its ordinary significance and therefore .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... established as a non-profit educational society in 1984. in such circumstances, the impugned trade mark does not qualify for registration and is prohibited under section 11 of the act. 61. the findings of the registrar that the appellants are not a globally well-known institute as the application for registration of the trade mark ..... appellants rights in the marks. t. the second respondent has wrongly exercised the discretion in favour of the first respondent under the provisions of section 18(1) of the act. the second respondent ought to have considered that the first respondent had filed the impugned application in bad faith and therefore could not have claimed ..... identical with that of theirs would definitely lead to confusion and deception among the public. therefore, the registration would be contrary to the provisions of section 11(a) of the act. the first respondent is thus not the proprietor of the impugned trade mark which is an imitation of the appellants well-known and reputed trade .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... 'ble ms.s.usha technical member: this is an application for rectification/cancellation of the trade mark tiger under no.1297091 in class 8 under section 47/57/125 of the trade marks act, 1999 (in short the act). m.p. no.59/2008 therein has been filed seeking stay of the operation of registration of registered trade mark no.1297091. 2. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... interconnection. thus, the adoption of the impugned mark by the appellant is dishonest. he did not examine the matter under section 12(1) of the act. he decided in relation of section 18(1) and section 18(4) of the act as against the appellant. 4. the appeal was taken up for consideration and heard arguments on 28th july, 2004, at ..... application. thus, he reached the conclusion that the mark being directly descriptive and laudatory of the goods is not registerable within the meaning of section 9 of the act. in relation to his examination under section 11(a) also, the assistant registrar held against the appellant and found that though the rival goods fall under different classes, but, ..... . an appeal no. 11/1996 was filed in the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad. the same has been transferred to this board in terms of section 100 of the trade marks act, 1999 and has been numbered as ta/266/2004. 2. an application bearing no. 436533 for registration of word mark 'aesculapius' for the goods .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... extensively used since then. the registration would definitely cause confusion and description among the trader and public and would be in continuation of the provisions of section 11 of the act. 4. the dishonest adoption of the impugned trade mark is only to earn profit on the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the appellants. the respondents ..... cannot claim any proprietary right under section 18 of the act. 5. the respondents denied the various objections and submitted that they had adopted and used the trade mark only after obtaining drug license. 6. ..... the fact that the respondents are using the trade mark after obtaining drug license in the state of orissa, they can claim proprietary right under section 18 (1) of the act. the respondents to file necessary application to restrict their use only for the state of orissa and after notification in the trade marks journal, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... novartis extract is not. but it is clear from both the judgments that we should understand the concepts based on the sections as they are in our act , and also contextualise it in our country. roche v. cipla also speaks of a person skilled in the art ..... s.25(2)(d). s.25(1)(b) refers to complete specification published in india, as does s.25(2)(b). the section concerned with revocation is also patterned like wise and we find in s.64(1)(e) relating to prior use and knowledge the word ..... existing at the date of the patent to be found in the literature then available. there are no limitations or words in the act to reduce this persons skill or knowledge. 37. in this case the art is wind energy. since this obviousness test is the ..... do not think we should make this person skilled in the art to be incapable of carrying out anything but basic instructions. the act makes a distinction between the person skilled in the art (the obviousness person) and the person who has average skill (enablement man). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... granting registration with a condition that the applicants/appellants cannot claim exclusively right to use the words energic and the numerals separately. we shall now quote section 57 of the act 57.) power to cancel or vary registration and to rectify the register.- (1) on application made in the prescribed manner to the appellate board or ..... for use and also to prove their case by which the said mark had acquired distinctive character. the registrar had also completely ignored the provisions of section 32 of the act. (d) the assistant registrar failed to refer to the opposition proceeding of the judgment reported in 1981 ptc 137 nor was the same distinguished despite ..... registrar who held that the said trade mark, namely, energic-31 was not capable of being distinguished and was descriptive in nature and hit by section 9 of the act. the deputy registrar had also held that the evidence placed on record was defective as the verification clause was absent. the appellants herein challenged the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... services for the mark shell autoserv in class 36 under registration no. 1237451. thus, the applicant it is not the person aggrieved under the act as required under section 47 of the act which is a pre-requisite for filing the rectification application. it is further submitted that the applicant is not a person aggrieved since he has ..... no recital relating to consideration. the relationship between the assignor and the assignee is not clear. the assignment is without goodwill and is contrary to section 42 of the trade marks act, 1999. no application has been made to the trade mark registry for the change of name. the mark has been never used for the services ..... the assignment. this is a peculiar situation where the existing respondent has allegedly transferred their rights over the trade mark and such assignment is not recorded as per section 42. as far as we are concerned, we cannot take note of the assignment. this objection relating to the assignment deed raised by the applicant in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... . 6. the 1st respondent had applied for a similar trade mark anzocin on 06.09.2002 claiming user since 01.05.2002. the registration is prohibited under section 9, 11 and 12 of the act. the counsel then pointed out to the certificates issued by some doctors which were produced before the registrar and submitted that those certificate were given by siddha ..... dismissing the opposition and allowing to proceed as per rules subject to condition laid down at pre-advertisement stage as per the provisions of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act). 2. the above matter was posted for hearing on 05.07.2011 the appellants counsel was present but there was no representation on behalf of the respondents .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... application. the adoption and use of the impugned trade mark by the first respondent was honest and bonafide and thus was entitled for registration under section 12(3) of the act. 17. we have heard both the counsel and we have considered the written submissions of both the parties and have gone through the documents carefully ..... of registered proprietor. 13. learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that they had relied two judgments in support of their contention under the provisions of section 12(3) of the act before the registrar and the application was proceeded to registration based on the case laws [ 1998 ptc (18) 300 maekawa bearing manufacturing co. ltd. ..... trade mark application in the year 1990. so, the adoption of the trade mark kavi by the first respondent is dishonest and cannot claim registration under section 12(3) of the act. 12. learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments in support of his claim:- a) 2007 (34) ptc 392 delhi ansul industries .....
Tag this Judgment!