Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... suchare ltd., vs. government of india 2004 (29) ptc 376 (ipab) at para 6 - the bone of contention of the appellant is that in terms of section 109 of the act read with rule 121 of the trade and merchandise marks rules 1959, the registrar should not have issued the certificate within three months from 19th december 1997, being the ..... issued. 8. in rejoinder the counsel for the petitioner submitted that no steps for stay was taken by the respondent as per section 95 of the act and also that rule 62 was not applicable. 9. we have considered the arguments of both sides. the main contention of the petitioner/respondent was that the ..... issued the certificate after a lapse of five years. he also referred to rules 59 and 62(1) of the trade mark rules, 2003 and also section 23(1) of the act for issuance of the certificate of registration. he further relied on some judgements to say that the appeal will not become infructuous if the certificate is already .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the respondent no.2, the applicant who are the appellants herein, had the full opportunity and aware that they had the right to go for appeal under section 25 of the act, to the high court (or appellate board whenever the patent bench is formed) in the event of refusal for their application to the grant of patent. ..... expressly, unless, at all events, that intention is plainly manifested by unavoidable inference. 7. the counsel for the appellants referred to section 162(4) of the act and also the section 6 of the general clause act, 1897 and stated that the rights which have accrued are always saved unless they are taken away expressively by a provision in the ..... before the appellate board. the counsel for the appellant further argued that there was provision for appeal against the order of the respondent no.2 under section 25(1) of the act to the appellate board which was already existing and thus, this appeal is maintainable before the appellate board. 6. we have heard the arguments of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... be cause if the marks in suit was registered, subject, if necessary, to any conditions and limitations. 28. the onus of establishing a case for registration under section 12 of the act lies on the applicant, by proving their honest adoption. in the instant case, we do not find any reason given by the respondent for adoption, whereas, ..... character as a result of use before the date of application or is a well known mark, such registration will be in contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the act. the applicants claim user since december 1995 which has not been satisfied. the main contention of the respondent was that one mr. m.k.ramanathan had ..... mark and is not vending its products bearing the said impugned trade mark. 27. coming to the issue of the respondent obtaining registration claiming benefit under section 12 of the act, we will have to consider the factors for registration. as per the dictum of lord tomlin the following factors are to be considered for allowing registration .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... is a general principle that in an application for rectification only an aggrieved person can file an application for removal of the trade mark. as per section 21 of the act any person may oppose a registration whereas only an aggrieved person can file an application for removal of a mark. 12. the term person aggrieved though ..... tainted, contradictory and void abinitio. (h) the impugned trade marks were neither distinctive nor capable of being distinguished and was thus contrary to the provisions of section 9 of the act. (i) the marks as well as the goods are identical and similar. (j) the registration would definitely cause unnecessary confusion and deception and will be ..... barred by section 11 of the act. (k) the first respondent had not used the marks for more than five years and three months prior to the filing of these applications. (l) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... / or services which is not similar to the goods of the applicant. hence the remaining of the mark in the register is in contravention of section 11(2) of the act. the applicant came to know about the registration only by way of the amendment petition filed by the respondent and immediately this application for rectification was ..... has to be regarded with reference to the essential features and that the respondent has clearly not been able to discharge the fundamental requirements under section 11(a) of the said act. the respondent therein furnished no cogent explanation as to how he came to adopt the trade design thus striking a resemblance of the mark of ..... . jewellers. in such circumstances the mark adopted by the respondent certainly would amount to deception and confusion and as such is prohibited for registration under section 11 (a) of the said act. hence the mark cannot be permitted any longer to remain in the register of trade marks. 17. it was also contended by the learned counsel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the respondent initiated civil and criminal proceedings. if at all the applicant has got any sufficient cause, he could have established his claim for registration under section 12 of the 1958 act and without doing so, he has filed these rectification applications and also set up the others to gain strength. 6. the applicant filed rejoinder denying ..... of a living person adopted for running a restaurant under the trading style new shanti sagar and as such, the trade mark cannot be registered under section 14 of the trade marks act, 1999, without the consent of that person; (4) the respondent obtained the registration of the impugned trade mark in class 30 for manufacture and ..... the applications be clubbed together and heard jointly. hence, we have heard all the applications jointly. 2. all the applications were filed under sections 47, 57 and 125 of the trade marks act, 1999, for removal of the respondent's trade mark from the register of trade marks registry. 3. the case of the applicant in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... impugned order, it is clear that the impugned trade mark advertisement is not in accordance with law. 10. it worthwhile to quote the provisions of section 20 and 22 of the act. section 20 advertisement of application (1) when an application for registration of a trade mark has been accepted whether absolutely or subject to conditions or ..... correction or any error in the application. the correction should be such that it does not substantially alter the identity of the trade marks. 13. sub-section 2 of section 20 provides that if an application has been corrected or amended before advertisement, the advertisement of the corrected mark has to be re-advertised. where an ..... connection with the application or permit an amendment of the application: provided that if an amendment is made to a single application referred to in sub-section (2) of section 18 involving division of such application into two or more applications, the date of making of the initial application shall be deemed to be the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... has sought to rely upon, inter alia, the subsistence and validity of the impugned registered trade mark. the applicant is, therefore, a person aggrieved within the meaning of sections 47 and 57 of the act and has locus standi to institute the present proceedings. 3. the applicant has sought for the removal / expunction/rectification of the trade mark on the grounds, inter ..... of trade marks rallis + snake device under no.195300 and 195299, respectively, from the register of trade marks or rectification of the register under section 47/57 of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act). 2. the applicant, a proprietorship company, is engaged in an old and established business of manufacturers and merchant of all varieties of electric fans .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... in this case, there is possibility of confusion as observed in the earlier para and hence the registration granted is in contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the act. 20. section 11 deals with identical goods and marks and similar goods and marks. under this provision also it has been stated that the marks shall not be ..... is likely to cause confusion which in turn would cause irreparable loss to the applicant and has got to be rectified. 17. as per the provisions of section 18 of the act, a person who has just copied another persons trade mark cannot be said to be the proprietor of the said trade mark, even if it is ..... that the trade mark is registered and remaining on the register wrongly and without sufficient cause; and (i) that the impugned registration is contrary to sections 9, 11 and 18 of the act. 7. the respondents filed their counter-statement denying the various allegations made in the application for rectification. the defense raised in the counter-statement was that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... - [2-[bis(pivaloyloxy)- methoxy] phosphinyl] methoxy) ethyl] adenine and a composition containing that new crystalline form. the claim 1-4 could not be allowable under section 3(d) of patent act 1970 ,and the agent have not able to prove enhance efficacy. there is no data submitted in the complete specification for clinical trial on human being, "for ..... human beings to support the case of therapeutical efficacy. thereafter, the assistant controller held that claims 4-7 are not allowable under section 3(e) of the patents act, 1970 and claims 7-10 are being beyond the scope of claim 1. 2. the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire order is ..... and its composition . hearing was held on 20.8.2009. the assistant controller held that claims 1-4 could not be allowed in view of section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 and no proof has been furnished to show enhanced efficacy. the impugned order also records that there is no data to show clinical trial on .....
Tag this Judgment!