Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... filed by the applicant. 75. however, the amendments which have been proposed must be complying with the requirements of section 59 of the act. section 59 (1) of the act reads as follows: hence from the above section 59 of the act, permissible amendments could be as follows:- 1. amendment must be by way disclaimer, correction, clarification or explanation; ..... allowed. moreover the revised amended claim 1 does not fall wholly within the scope of the claim of the specification before the amendment as required under section 59 of the act. these requirements have not been met, in a sincere and genuine manner by respondent. we refuse the amendment sought and accordingly, the amendments sought ..... and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... applicant with a view to confuse the appellate board, as defence against the infringement activities, without however, adopting a fair course of action, as available under section 105 of the act, shows that the fact that they are infringing the patent and continue to do the same, amongst others, owned by the respondent herein. c. the respondent ..... the legality and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then the ..... energy sectors in india and they manufacture and install wind turbines all over india and thus they are an interested person within the meaning of the section 64 of the act. 4. the respondent challenged the competency of the signatory to the application for revocation and the same was heard by this appellate board and passed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... patent sense, means that the subject matter was previously known earlier, which could be in some form of publication or any document as per provision of section 13(2) of the act. so anticipation requires that "each element of the claim at issue is found, either expressly described or under the principles of inherency, in a single ..... of patent is there after complying with all this statutory requirements. the deponent submitted that there was an opposition to the grant of a patent under section 25 of the act and the same was rejected by the controller of patents and that aggrieved party went on an appeal before the honble high court of madras. but ..... is issued to the contesting respondent by the controller of patents after due process of examination and the patentee is entitled to enjoy all the rights under section 48 of the act in exclusion of the others. the contesting respondent also submitted that one of the competitors filed an opposition within the permissible period and the matter was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... could not have acquired distinctiveness as there was no use on the date of application and the registration was, therefore, in contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the act. the applicant had filed the rectification application as soon as they became aware of the impugned registration. 8. the applicants established their business as early ..... (iv) the impugned registered trade mark is incapable of distinguishing the goods and is devoid of any distinctive character and is in contravention of section 9(1) (a) of the act; (v) the impugned registered trade mark is identical with that of the applicants earlier registered trade mark and as such is in contravention of ..... the public is certain and as such is in contravention of section 11(1) of the act; (vii) the impugned registration is in contravention of the provisions of section 11(2) of the act; (viii) the impugned registration is barred by section 11 (3) (a) and 27 of the act; (ix) the impugned registration has been obtained by playing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... , passed by the registrar. we are, therefore, of the opinion that this appeal is filed without any cause of action and is not maintainable under sub-section (1) of section 91 of the act. in view of this opinion, we do not consider it necessary to go into the merits or otherwise of the appeal. 10. the appeal is dismissed ..... has not only yet given any decision on the objection filed under rules 38, 39 41, 42 and 44 of the trade marks rules, 2002 read with section 19 of the act against the application no. 1219400 but has not yet even sought explanation/clarification from respondent no.2. the registrar, without deciding the said application, has allowed the ..... the written submission should be sent to the other side. 5. learned counsel for the appellant contended that the mark applied for registration being not registrable under section 9 of the act ought to have been dismissed at the outset and ought not to travel to the stages of advertising in the trade marks journal, calling tm-5 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... of the word sonico makes it visually and phonetically different than that of the opponents trade mark sony . when it comes to the objections under section 11 of the act the assistant registrar had a different view with regard to the similarity of the marks. however, both the findings are mutually contradicting which reveals the ..... ones . so it is a categorical finding that both the marks are visually and phonetically similar. but when he deals with the objections under section 11(a) of the act, he makes out the differences between the marks as follows:- applicants trade mark sonico as has been represented in the representation of their application consists ..... marks coupled with the difference in the nature of goods of the first respondent will avoid any likelihood of confusion. lastly the objection under section 18(1) of the act of the appellant was overruled on the ground that the first respondent adopted the trade mark sonico from their trading style soni industrial corporation by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... which cannot be permitted. we have also perused the order of the assistant registrar of trade marks. the main reason to reject the opposition in respect of section 11(a) of the said act is that the products of the appellant and the first respondent are different and the trade channels are also different. apart from that, the assistant registrar has ..... by the same, the appellant filed an appeal on the file of the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad in appeal no.2/1995. by virtue of section 100 of the trade marks act, 1999, the said appeal stood transferred to this appellate board and numbered as ta/252/2004/tm/amd. 3. we heard the appeal during our sitting ..... enfield india limited, filed notice of their intention to oppose the registration of the trade mark on the ground of its violative of sections, 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12 (1) and 18(1) of the said act. the first respondent filed their counter statement. both the parties filed their evidence and the matter was heard by the assistant registrar of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... and also the visual impression of the impugned mark was not sufficiently distinctive for registration in part b and as such does not qualify for registration under section 9 of the said act. the third respondent having reputation and goodwill in respect of their mark, the registration of the impugned mark would cause confusion and deception and as such, ..... assistant registrar of trade marks, on a careful consideration of the materials available on record, has found that the registration of the mark is objectionable under sections 9 and 11 of the said act. when that be so, there is no infirmity in the order of the registrar of trade marks and consequently, there is no merit in the ..... appeal in tma 1 of 1998 on the file of hon'ble high court of calcutta. the said appeal was transferred to this appellate board pursuant to section 100 of the trade marks act, 1999 and numbered as ta/300/2004. 4. we heard ms. maushumi bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the appellants and ms. sunita goel, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... counsel for the respondent bilcare limited also accepted the above fact. 10. in view of the above, we think it necessary to look into the provisions of the patents act and rules. section 25 opposition to the patent:- (1) xxxxxx (2)xxxxxxx (3) (a) xxxxxxx (b)on receipt of such notice of opposition, the controller shall, by order ..... both the appeals are against the impugned order dated 12.12.2007 in the matter of post grant opposition to the indian patent no.197823 under section 25 (2) of the patents act, 1970. 2. the invention in no.197823 is listed as metallized packaging films. the respondent bilcare limited herein made an application for grant of ..... the controller shall decide the opposition and notify his decision to the parties giving reasons therefor. 11. from a plain reading of the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 25 clause (b) it is clear that the controller shall constitute an opposition board and all documents and pleadings be forwarded to the opposition board for examination .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... his mind that the word 1a - pharma is an ordinary dictionary word which is apt for normal description of goods and does not qualify for registration under section 9 of the act and should not be allowed to be monopolised by any one. he further reasons that the impugned mark 1a-pharma would definitely interfere with the legitimate rights ..... pharma are one and the same and therefore, the mark applied for was purely, descriptive of the character and quality of the goods and objectionable under section 9(1)(b ) of the act. the hearing officer then goes on to cite a passage from dr. s. venkateswaras book on trade marks and passing off from page 92 and infers ..... of this word as a trade mark giving exclusive right to the applicant in respect to the goods applied for. the hearing officer thereafter exercised his discretion under section 18(4) against the applicant on the reasoning that the mark applied for will interfere with the legitimate right of the public and other traders. the hearing officer .....
Tag this Judgment!