Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... applications are for removal of the trademarks udhayam? and grbs udhayam? registered under nos.785124 and 1077180 in class 29 respectively under the provisions of section 57 of the act. 2. the facts of the case are one and the same and the issues, therefore the matters were heard together and a common order is ..... grb?, udhayam ghee? and grbs udhayam ghee? are several lakhs of rupees. the subject trademarks are well known within the meaning of sections 11 (6) to (9) of the act. 22. the respondents are the true bonafide proprietors of the trademark which is not identical or similar to the applicants trademark. the respondents trademark ..... trademark udhaiyam?; (10) the impugned trademark wrongly remains on the register without sufficient cause and (11) the registration is in contravention of the provisions of the act. 14. the respondent herein filed the counter statement stating that the applicant mr. s. sudhakar has no locus standi to file the present application since the application .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... half life periods, dosing frequencies and plasma protein along with lactobacillus sporogenes. 12. the respondent stated that the appellants have misinterpreted the provisions of section 57 of the act. the amendments were carried out in accordance with the directions of the controller and not at the request of the respondent. the amendment is allowed ..... (respondent herein), the controller cannot allow the amendment if the infringement suit is pending before the court. the amendment therefore falls under section 59(2) and not under section 57 of the act. 13. the appellant has stated that the controller who granted the patent ought not to have presided over the post grant opposition. ..... diarrhea. 19. the process disclosed in the present invention results in a new product and therefore it does not fall under the provisions of section 3 (d) of the act. the patent sufficiently discloses the subject matter and that the disclosure in the patent would enable any person skilled in the art to perform .....
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
..... or desire in someway to injure them." 3. kabushiki kaisha toshiba vs tosiba appliances co and ors. 2008(37) ptc 394(sc) trade and merchandise marks act, 1958. sections 46 and 56 jurisdiction to remove the registered mark trade mark toshiba in which to was taken from the tokyo and shiba was taken from word shibaura acquired about ..... registered proprietors could not prove their user of the registered trade mark 273758 was wrongly made in the register and is wrongly remaining on the register under section 56(2) of the act." 7. gist of applicants arguments: the applicant state that they came to india in 1998. it is a south korean company. it has started ..... 1. lever brothers, port sunlight, ld. v. sunwite products, ld. rpc [ vol.lxvi ] - 1949,66,rpc 84 the plaintiffs were proprietors of the mark sunlight , registered in 1884 in class 3 in respect of soap, substances for laundry use, detergents and certain cosmetic goods. at the beginning of 1946 the defendants commenced to use the mark suniwite on .....
Tag this Judgment!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
..... the trade mark drotin being earlier registered mark for pharmaceutical and medicines preparations, the registration of the impugned mark drotikind was prohibited from registration under section 11 of the act. 14. the learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that during the course of arguments, an objection was raised by the respondent no ..... kunwar (air 1966 scr (3) 300 : air 1966 sc 1332) where an application has been advertised before acceptance under the proviso to section 20 (1) of the act the registrar may in his discretion cause the application to be advertised again and therefore it is not mandatory that the application which is advertised ..... impugned application was made by the respondent to register drotikind . the registration of the impugned mark was obtained and made violative of provisions of section 11 of the act. the registration of the impugned mark was obtained by suppression of material facts. therefore, it is an entry wrongly made and made without sufficient .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... relevant material and hence supreme courts interference by reassessment of material not called for at this stage- constitution of india, article 136 - trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 sections 46, 56 equity injunction, grant of is based on equitable principles. b. torts passing off action action for deceit unfair trade competition trade mark, already ..... the registered owner of trade mark maintainable and the party entitled to protection. vii.) air 1963 supreme court 449 amritdhara pharmacy vs. satya deo - trade marks act (1940), sections 14, 18 (a), 10 (1), 10 (2) trade name likely to deceive and cause confusion tests indicated overall similarity has to be considered trade names ..... of the impugned mark and the issue is decided accordingly. i have also no hesitation in sustaining the proprietary claim of the applicants under section 18 (1) of the act as the impugned mark which is a label mark consisting of other prominent features like letters abt written in a stylized form. similarly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... metro card agency. this implies the entire business including the trade mark belongs to sole owner i.e. the respondent herein. the respondent states in the trade marks act under section 2 (1) (m) the definition of a mark includes a trade name and here the trade name includes the word metro and hence he had a right ..... the notice of the registrar the termination of the arrangement, so as to enable him to rectify the register in respect of the registered trade mark under section 57 of the act. 15. the respondent had applied for exclusive right for the trade mark metro previously jointly used by both parties. that is clearly a misappropriation of property ..... from the register amounting to fraud. (v) the various legal grounds on which the removal of the impugned trade marks under section 57 of the trade marks act alleged are:- (a) false averments of ownership of the mark under section 18(1) before the registrar. (b) the impugned mark is remaining on the register without sufficient cause. (c) .....
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
..... counsel for the respondents. such being the position, the trade mark registered is liable to be removed on the ground of non-use as per the provision under section 47 of the trade marks act, 1999. it is relevant to give the provision as under:- 47. removal from the register and imposition of limitation on ground of non-use:- (1) a registered ..... the part of the applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods or services by him or, in a case to which the provisions of section 46 apply, by the company concerned or the registered user, as the case may be, and that there has, in fact, been no bona fide use of the trade mark ..... seeking the relief of rectification by removing / expunging the trade mark no. 601815 in class 5. 2. the case of the applicant is that they have registered under the companies act, 1956 having their head office at new delhi. they have adopted the trade mark cillamin in the year 1989 and they were using the said mark from 1994 onwards. their .....
Tag this Judgment!