Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... at the belated stage. the documents filed are beyond the scope of pleadings and therefore, cannot be taken on record. the board erred in considering the provisions of section 8 of the act. 27. the provisions of order 47 rule 1 is reproduced below:- 1. application for review of judgment. (1) any person considering himself aggrieved,-- (a) ..... . in reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the main issue is only with regard to the failure to disclose the information required under section 8 of the act for revocation. the same has been recorded at para 12 of the impugned order. the petitioners allegation that the documents were with the respondents in 2009 ..... are accepted, has it been relied on and pleaded in their revocation application. 12. the observation made in para 12 of the impugned order as regards section 8 of the act was an error because of the judgement by the hon'ble delhi high court. except for us patent 221 documents, the other eleven documents are irrelevant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... system when in the original claims he claimed a device characterized to produce 2nd ac voltage. therefore the amendments sought in claims are not allowable under section 59 of the patents act, 1970. 39. the other alleged typographical errors are listed in annexure to written submission. these amendments are in the specification from page 2-5 page ..... said with any certainty that the claimed invention in the impugned patent has any technical advance over the existing knowledge. thus, the very first requirement of section 2 (ja) of the patents act is not met by the impugned patent. the minor difference, if any, from the existing knowledge is obvious to a person skilled in the art ..... view of '712 patent and common general knowledge evident from '652 patent, the granted claim 1 does not involve an inventive step as defined in section 2 (ja) of the patents act and is liable to be revoked. 59. the counsel for the applicant submitted that even if it is assumed that claim 1 includes dc transmission .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... forth his cause. there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. this court has held that the words sufficient cause under section 5 of the limitation act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide shakuntala devi jain v. kuntal kumari (1969) 1 scr 1006 and state of w ..... his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9. it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. section 5 of the limitation act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. length of delay is no matter, acceptability of ..... on record, where the learned judges have laid the following principle: 11. thus it becomes plain that the expression sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the act or order 22 rule 9 of the code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... 176202, 184077 in respect of inventions relating to machines for tea and tea products are owned by the petitioner. hence the applicant is the person interested under section 64 of the act. admissibility of expert evidence 9. the counsel of the applicant refers to and relied on the expert's evidence filed by dr madhvan pillai. verification of ..... for which he is entitled to claim protection and that there is no need for providing an example over the entire range claimed in the patent. section 10 (4) (b) of the patents act is set-out below for ready reference: (4) every complete specification shall- (b) disclose the best method of performing the invention which is known ..... be mandatory (paragraph 24 of the judgment), the court could not exercise dispensing powers to waive non-compliance. the court relied upon sections 31, 83(l)(c) and 86 of the representation of the people act, 1951 read with rule 94- a of the rules there under to hold that non-compliance of the said provisions would leave .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... are of the view that the mark of the respondent no. 1 is prior in use. identical marks which tend to cause confusion cannot be allowed. the objection under section 11 of the act is, therefore, allowed. 26. having answered the issues in favour of the respondent no. 1, we accordingly uphold the order dated 13.12.2007. the appeal is, ..... application of amendment on form tm-16 has, therefore, to be rejected. 25. the other issue is whether the registration would be in contravention of the provisions of section 11 of the act. the marks are identical and the goods are the same and also the trade channels are same. the products being medicine more care is to be taken to determine ..... dealing with the merits of the case, the main issue as to allowing the tm-16 application and whether the registration would be in contravention of the provisions of section 11 of the act. 24. the amendment sought for is to change the date of user and to change the name and address of the company. while the date of user .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... with the search report the registrar has proceeded to register the impugned trade mark. the registration thus granted is in contravention of the provisions of section 11 of the act. the adoption by the respondent is malafide with an intention to violate the exclusive proprietary right of the applicants. the adoption leads to confusion and ..... to know that the respondent was also granted a subsequent registration for an identical trade mark clavmox . when no grounds have been made out under section 12 of the act, the respondents registration does not survive. the adoption of the impugned trade mark by the respondent amounts to infringement of the applicants registered trade mark. ..... manufacture drug does not amount to use. the suit filed by the respondent against the applicant is pending. the counsel relied on section 11,18,23 and 34 and 109 of the act. the counsel finally relied on the legal user certificate and the examination report. the counsel submitted that in the examination report it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... singh because of his son whose name is raju whereas the 1st respondent has given no reason for the adoption of raghu singh . the counsel then referred to section 17 of the act. the counsel also submitted that the 1st respondent is not clear as to the date of user as in one place they claim to be using since 1997, ..... name as trade mark. hence in my point of view that nobody could claim exclusive right over the family surname singh. this is clear from the wording of section of the trade marks act, 1999. therefore in my opinion that the question of deceptive similarity in relation to a family surname singh could not be determined as it is a common ..... for registration of the mark singh word per se was refused registration, for which reason the trade mark ought to be removed. the registration is opposed under section 9(1)(a) of the act. the impugned trade mark singh, singh mehandi industries is common to trade and is being used by several other traders even before the 1st respondent could adopt .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... forth his cause. there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. this court has held that the words sufficient cause under section 5 of the limitation act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide shakuntala devi jain v. kuntal kumari (1969) 1 scr 1006 and state of w ..... his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9. it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. section 5 of the limitation act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. length of delay is no matter, acceptability of ..... on record, where the learned judges have laid the following principle: 11. thus it becomes plain that the expression sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the act or order 22 rule 9 of the code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... forth his cause. there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. this court has held that the words sufficient cause under section 5 of the limitation act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide shakuntala devi jain v. kuntal kumari (1969) 1 scr 1006 and state of w ..... his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9. it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. section 5 of the limitation act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. length of delay is no matter, acceptability of ..... on record, where the learned judges have laid the following principle: 11. thus it becomes plain that the expression sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the act or order 22 rule 9 of the code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... forth his cause. there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. this court has held that the words sufficient cause under section 5 of the limitation act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide shakuntala devi jain v. kuntal kumari (1969) 1 scr 1006 and state of w ..... his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9. it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. section 5 of the limitation act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. length of delay is no matter, acceptability of ..... on record, where the learned judges have laid the following principle: 11. thus it becomes plain that the expression sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the act or order 22 rule 9 of the code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence .....
Tag this Judgment!