Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... . the respondents mark was proposed to be used on the date of application and therefore the respondent cannot claim to be the proprietor of the mark under section 18(1) of the act. the respondent has adopted the trade mark only to trade upon the goodwill and reputation earned by the appellant. 5. the respondent herein filed their counter ..... and not otherwise. the respondent admitted that there were no documents filed by them in support of their use in classes 9 and 16. the provisions of section 11 (2) of the act were relied on. the interim orders relied on by the appellants will not support their case. the trade channels being different the question of confusion and ..... to that of the respondents. we therefore are of the opinion that the registration of the impugned trade mark would be in contravention of the provisions of section 11 (2) of the act. 23. where a registered trade mark has acquired a goodwill and reputation, such use cannot be permitted to be used by another person as it would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... of rule 12 of the said rules, is mainly for calculating the period within which the statement and undertaking on form 3 as required under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the act is to be filed in the designated state. rather to give a much beneficial time period to collect the details of other foreign filings and submit to ..... of the treaty shall have an over-riding power and those provisions only would apply in relation to the international applications. 11. looking at the provisions of section 7(1b) of the act, the filing date of national phase application in a designated state, for e.g., india, has been referred to be same as the international filing date ..... canadian patent office and the chinese patent office. thus the applicant requested that he is not in obligation to furnish the actual national phase entry date according to section 8(1) of the act or rule 12(1), (1a) and (2) of the patent rules, 2003. the applicant also pointed out to the respondent about the similar procedure adopted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... registration is for the year1998-99. in view of the user prior to making application for registration, the registration is covered under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of the act. regarding applicants contention that the mark k/c is common to trade is not sustainable in the absence of any iota of evidence regarding their existence ..... trade mark kic. 14. shri vidhani submitted that the mark of the respondent has acquired reputation and goodwill in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of the act. the mark has acquired a distinctive character by way of use made of it before the date of making application for registration. the registration was ..... , user, etc. the applicants ground of rectification for contravention of section 9 of the act is not sustainable. 22. now the next question for consideration is whether the mark of the respondent is identical to the mark of the applicant to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... trade mark as they are prior users and are also registered proprietors of the trade mark. therefore, the appellants are aggrieved person within the meaning of section 57 of the act. 27. next, we shall deal with the user of the mark by both the appellants and the respondents. the appellants claim user since the year ..... in force. the registration has been obtained by claiming false proprietorship and suppressing material facts before the registrar of trade marks. the registration is contrary to section 11 of the act. the impugned trade mark has been made without sufficient cause and is wrongly remaining on the register. 5. the impugned registration is liable to be ..... applicant. since the registered trade mark manishs is identical with the registered trade mark of the applicant, the applicant are aggrieved persons within the meaning of section 57 of the act. 4. the applicant also states that the respondents claim of user since 1982 is false. the impugned trade mark was not in use since 1982 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... as it pertains to the year 2002. 9. it is worthwhile to quote the observation of the division bench of delhi court in an application under section 124 of the act: the provisions which would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case are those which envisage that where the application for rectification of ..... the miscellaneous petition and have considered the arguments of both the counsel. we find that though the learned counsel was vehemently submitting about the provisions of section 113 of the act, but nothing has been pleaded in the miscellaneous petition except for a statement in para 10- that even otherwise criminal proceedings are pending before the criminal ..... , charges are yet to be framed and after charges are framed, the court has to be satisfied in this case. the issue of maintainability under section 124 of the act was neither raised in the counter statement nor was it pleaded in the writ petition before the honble high court. the counsel also relied on some .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... is prejudicial against the appellant. 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. 9. the appeal is dismissed as ..... 11.2000 for conversion of the said application into proprietorship firms application. however, the trade mark bew (label per se) was advertised, before acceptance under proviso to section 20(1) of the act, in the trade marks journal no. mega 4 dated 25.10.2003 in the names of s/shri prashant sharma and bharat sharma but subsequently the said advertisement ..... been held by the high court of rajasthan in the case of gharib ram sharma v. daulat ram kashyap, (1994) 80 com. cases 267 (raj). 8. sections 18 to 24 of the act provide for procedure for registration of a trade mark. any person who claims to be the proprietor of a trade mark may apply to register the mark .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... wherein the time period is given, mainly for calculating the period within which the statement and undertaking on form 3 as required under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the act is to be filed in the designated state. rather to give a much beneficial time period to collect the details of other foreign filings and ..... application and notice that neither the appellant has been found to have failed to disclose to the controller (here the respondent) the information required under section 8 of the act nor has he furnished the information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge. there appears to be no further technical objections from the ..... the respondent has failed to recognise that no material information has been concealed by the appellant while furnishing these details on form 3 as required under section 8 of the act. finally, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of the respondent may be set aside and allow this national phase patent application .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... statement of the respondent. 10. the first issue to be considered in an application for rectification is whether the applicant is an aggrieved person as required under section 57 of the act; that an application for removal of the trade mark from the register must be made by an aggrieved person. in powell vs. birmingham vinegar brewery co. ..... and also that the respondents business is confined to the state of kerala alone. the respondents use is honest and concurrent as per the provisions of section 12 of the act. the respondents other submission was that they are dealing only with the sale of shoes and footwear whereas the applicant has no business of shoes and ..... was under an order of interim injunction. the registration in favour of the respondent has been erroneously granted and that it was in contravention of section 9 and 11 of the act. 3. the registration granted in favour of the respondent was not correct as the procedures for registration were not followed and also that the applicants .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... ascertain as to whether the application is well within the period of limitation. on the objection of the applicant, the respondent filed the application under section 5 of the limitation act after more than five years which is deliberate without any bonafide intention. all these are to be taken together along with an incorrect statement in the ..... fatal. having received the reply in the year 1996, at least immediately thereafter, the respondent ought to have evinced some interest in filing the application under section 5 of the limitation act. till 6.12.2001, the respondent did not care to file any application for condoning the delay. even though the delay is eight days, it ..... knowledge about the said ex-parte decree. when the applicant raised an objection with regard to the question of limitation, the respondent filed an application under section 5 of the limitation act on 6.12.2001, nearly six years after the filing of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. the c.o. being one .....
Tag this Judgment!