Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... public. 16. the first respondents trade mark had acquired distinctiveness by use for a continuous period of five years and thus was qualified for registration under section 9 of the act. the first respondent was thus the proprietor of the trade mark philips as they had used the trade mark for several years without any interruption. 17. ..... respondent was prior in use to that of the appellant and as such they were the proprietors of the trade mark as per the provisions of section 18(1) of the act. on the above findings the assistant registrar disallowed the opposition and allowed the application for registration. 4. aggrieved by the order of the assistant registrar ..... heard and decided by the assistant registrar of trade marks. 3. the assistant registrar passed the impugned order on the grounds that the provisions of section 11(a) of the act were not attracted as the goods were of different description and as such there was no confusion or deception among the public; that the registration would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... goods under the impugned trade mark are not of the same description. the assistant registrar found that the registration of the impugned mark is violative of section 11(a) of the said act since the first respondent has acquired sufficient reputation by use of the mark 'eagle' from the year 1977. the assistant registrar further held that ..... respondent, the assistant registrar had strained himself on the question of use and found that the registration of the impugned mark will be violative of section 11(a) of the said act. the first respondent's registered mark is only in respect of electric switches and the appellant is not seeking registration of the impugned mark under ..... of the appellant being totally different, the registration of the impugned mark ought to have been allowed. even in respect of the question of section 12(3) of the said act the assistant registrar had misdirected himself in finding that the adoption of the trade mark by the appellant is not bona fide which leads to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... same by entering an opposition on the ground that the registration of the impugned trade mark would be contrary to the provisions of sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(i) and 18 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958. after hearing both the counsel, the assistant registrar of the trade mark, chennai overruled the objection of the respondents and directed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the register. the impugned registration is registered without sufficient cause and is wrongly remaining in the register. 7. the impugned registration is contrary to the provisions of section 11(1)(b) of the trade marks act, 1999. the applicants trade mark crompton greaves is a well known trade mark. the impugned trade mark crompton super is deceptively similar to the applicants trade ..... period of three months before the date of this application and therefore the registration is in contravention of the provisions of the act. 9. the applicant is a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 47(1) and 57 of the act, as the applicant is the proprietor of the trade mark crompton greaves which is extensively used in respect of a wide .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... for consideration is whether the grant of registration of application under no.518071 in class 7 would be in contravention of the provisions of sections 11,12 and 18 of the act. section 11(a) of the act deals with the mark, the use of which is likely to cause confusion and is prohibited for registration. the marks being identical the ..... qualify for registration as the rival marks are identical and the goods are of the same description. 18. lastly coming to the question of proprietorship as per section 18(1) of the act, there is no doubt that the respondent who is the registered proprietor of the trade mark as early as 1957 is the proprietor. the applicant ie. the ..... and deception. the user date given by the respondent no.1 is false. the respondent no.1 is not the proprietor of the impugned trade mark under section 18(1) of the act. 5. the appellant filed the counter denying the various allegations made in the notice of opposition. they further had stated that their user since 1977 is honest .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... as the certificate of registration is perused. the second respondents thus are the proprietors of the trade mark and the application, therefore, qualifies for registration under section 18(1) of the act. 15. we, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the assistant registrar and hence uphold the same. the second respondents are hereby directed to ..... proprietors of the trade mark capital in respect of goods which are allied and cognate to the goods for which the registration is granted. hence under section 12(3) of the act, the second respondent is entitled to have the registration granted under special circumstances. 12. the other aspect is that the trading style of the second ..... the trade mark as early as 1990. the second respondent, therefore, can claim to be the proprietor of the trade mark and therefore, registration allowed under section 18(1) of the act. 4. aggrieved by the said order, the opponent filed the instant appeal before the honble high court of delhi in cm (m) no.70 of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... impugned mark provided the appellant changed the spelling from "laxsons" to "lakshsons" it is for us to consider as to how the impugned mark offends section 11(a) of the act. factually with regard to the other aspect i.e. the appellant is the earlier applicant and the first respondent though filed the application subsequent to ..... the assistant registrar totally failed to consider the material date of the application. consequently he also failed to consider the right of the appellant under section 12(2) of the act. the registration certificate was produced by the first respondent only at the time of the hearing before the assistant registrar and hence it is clear that ..... attracted. the first respondent being the user of the identical mark, the registration of the impugned mark would necessarily cause a confusion as contemplated under section 11(a) of the act and on this short ground the impugned order of the assistant registrar can be sustained. 6. by way of reply the learned counsel for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... respect of the same class of goods, i.e., toilet preparations and cosmetics, the appellant is not entitled for registration since the same is in violation of section 11(a) of the act. the deputy registrar of - trade marks, new delhi, had elaborately considered this question and upheld the objection of the second respondent. we also entirely endorse ..... counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is honest and concurrent user of the impugned mark and as such, they are entitled for the registration under section 12(3) of the act. further, the mark applied for being an associated one with the earlier registered mark, the same cannot be refused. he further contended that their already registered ..... appeal has been filed in the high court of delhi in cm (m) no. 29/1997, which stood transferred to this appellate board, by virtue of section 100 of the trade marks act, 1999 and numbered as ta/131/2003-tm/del. 4. we have heard shri n.k. anand, the learned counsel for the appellant and shri b .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... novelty and inventive step in respect of claims 1 to 6 vis- -vis us224. the learned counsel for the appellant contented in view of provisions of section 14 of the patent act, 1970 and considering that there was no objection for claims 1 to 6 (method claims) with regard to novelty and inventive step, these claims ought ..... to have been granted. there cannot be further adjudication under section 15 or for the present appeal in respect of novelty and inventive step in respect of ..... to his satisfaction. therefore, the controller i.e. the respondent has power to raise further objections which he found necessary before the patent is granted. 5. section 15 clearly shows that when an objection relating to patentability is raised by the controller the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the controller that invention is patentable .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... of the trade mark similar to that of the applicant. therefore, the respondents adoption is tainted with dishonesty. the registration is against the provisions of section 18 (1) of the act. 18. the respondent though has disputed the date of user, has not commented upon the applicants registration as to its validity. the settled principle ..... have admitted that it is causing confusion in the public as the marks are deceptively similar. the mark, therefore, is in contravention of provisions of section 11 of the act. 17. the applicants have used the mark since 1988 whereas the respondents have adopted a deceptively similar mark rather an identical mark except for the additional ..... confusion and deception among the public. the impugned trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character and is therefore in contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the act. the respondents have also not used the trade mark for a period of more than five years and three months and on this ground alone, .....
Tag this Judgment!