Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the next issue as to whether the impugned trade mark could be allowed to remain on the register in contravention of the provisions of sections 9 and 11 of the act. section 9 of the act deals with the relative grounds for refusal of registration. a trade mark shall not be refused registration if before the date of application for ..... proves that the mark was in use. 26. the counsel for respondent further submitted that the applicants were not persons aggrieved as per the provisions of section 57 of the act. by the impugned mark sonata remaining on the register, the applicants rights are not affected in any way. he also referred to the judgments cited by ..... out that he had denied the same in his counter statement- para 23. 23. with regard to refusal of registration under section 9 and 11 of the act, the respondent submitted that section 9 of the act was arbitrary. the respondents trade mark had acquired distinctiveness by use. the respondent had applied for registration in the year 1992 whereas .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... only to trade upon the goodwill of the appellants. 10. learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there was a specific ban under the provisions of section 12(1) of the act as the appellants trade mark sony had acquired wide reputation and goodwill among the public. the trade mark sony was a well known mark. the public ..... the joint registrar:- (a) the trade mark had acquired distinctiveness on the basis of evidence and was qualified for registration as per the provisions of section 9(2) of the act. (b) the objection under section 12(1) was declined as the goods were different though were under the same class of the fourth schedule, but the marks were identical. (c ..... before the honble high court of bombay in miscellaneous petition no.225 of 1987 and the same was transferred to this board as per the provisions of section 100 of the trade marks act, 1999 and renumbered as ta/50/03/tm/mum. 7. the appellant filed the appeal on various grounds. the main grievance of the appellant was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... itself and drew our attention to the trade mark registration certificate (trade mark kothari hosiery kalighat). 15. the learned counsel also referred to section 9(2) and section 11 of the act and submitted that if the impugned mark was allowed to be registered possibility of confusion would definitely arise among the public. he further submitted ..... seconds and that both are known to each other and the registrar had allowed the opposition and refused registration in exercise of his discretionary powers under section 18 (4) of the act. 6. aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed the above appeal for setting aside the order dated 29.06.2005 of the deputy ..... capable of distinguishing, it may be considered for registration upon evidence of acquired distinctiveness. 13. the learned counsel for the appellant also referred to section 9(1)(b) of the act and submitted that the goods were not exclusively manufactured in kashmir and so did not describe the name of the place. 14. the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... which we will discuss a little later, then the mark applied for is not registrable. the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 9 and sub-section (1) of section 11 of the act will hit the mark of the respondent. similarly, the first respondents mark will not be registrable as it attracts the relative grounds of ..... which transmit and disseminate the information as soon as it is sent or beamed from one place to another. satellite television is a major contributor of the information explosion. dissemination of knowledge of a trademark in respect of a product through advertisement in media amounts to use of the trademark whether or not the advertisement is ..... showing shipments of polo products from india are proof of his submission and as such the appellant is entitled to the benefit of provision of sub-section (1) of section 56 of the act. 7. learned senior counsel shri gandhi contended that the principle of law in the case of likelihood of confusion and deception is that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... mark, which we will discuss a little later, the respondents mark will not be registrable as the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 9 and sub-section (1) of section 11 of the act will hit the mark of the respondent. similarly, the respondents mark will not be registrable as it attracts the relative grounds of refusal ..... the respondents mark cannot be capable of distinguishing its goods from that of applicants goods which was already in market. the exception carved out of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the act will not be available in the present case as the mark applied for was on the basis of proposed to be used and as such there ..... appeared on behalf of the respondent. 6. dr. acharya, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is the person aggrieved within the meaning of section 57 of the act as the applicant has filed a suit before the high court of delhi against the respondent for restraining it from using the trade mark piozulin and thus the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... of opposition on which the registrar did not pass any order. subsequently, the assistant registrar passed order treating the application deemed to have been abandoned under section 21 of the act. the communication regarding passing order of abandonment was issued to the appellant by letter dated 27.1.2004 without taking into consideration of the affidavit of appellant ..... whereas such application was filed by the appellant after lapse of two months on 11.2.2004. the assistant registrar has passed the abandonment order under sub-section (2) of section 21 of the act as she was under the obligation not to extend the period beyond one month owing to statutory bar under the ..... has not passed any order granting extension of time. for granting extension of time, the provisions of section 131 of the act provide that the registrar must be satisfied that there is sufficient cause for extending the time to do an act. it is evident from the copy of form tm-56 dated 24.7.2003 that the ground mentioned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... person? the applicant in this case is an aggrieved person for the reason that the respondent had taken criminal action against the applicant. as per section 56 of the act for expunging or varying the entry wrongly made or remaining in the register the locus standi would be ascertained liberally since it would not be against ..... dolar and to earn undue profits in an illegal manner. the respondents are not the actual and lawful owners and proprietors of their impugned mark dolaren under section 18 of the act. thus the respondents concealed the relevant facts before the registrar of trade marks and on the basis of false representation, obtained the registration of the impugned ..... of being distinctive as on the date of its registration. thus, the continuity of the registration of the impugned mark is hit by the provisions of section 9 of the act. if the registration of the impugned mark dolaren under the aforesaid number is allowed to be continued in the name of the registered proprietor in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... implication of the aforementioned sub-rule is that the extension application to the registrar should be made before expiry of three months period specified in sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act. if such interpretation is given to the said sub-rule, it would be contrary to the legislative intent and would defeat the purpose for which ..... has conferred the discretionary power on the registrar to allow extension of time not exceeding one month in aggregate. we have already stated that while enacting section 21(1) of the act, legislature has in its wisdom thought fit to leave it to the discretion of the registrar to allow extension of time to give notice of opposition ..... on which journal was made available to the public is required to be certified by the registrar. rule 47(1) of the rules read with section 21(1) of the act clearly establishes that a notice of opposition filed after three months has to be accompanied by the prescribed application and prescribed fee for seeking an extension .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... applicant does not claim to be the proprietor of a trade mark used or proposed to be used by him he cannot be desirous of registering it under section 18(1) of the act. 6. after having heard the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and going through the pleadings, the main question that emerged for our decision is ..... one year and thereafter applied for registration shows that appellant is lawfully the first and rightful proprietor of the mark oflex under section 18(1) and has a right to registration absolutely under section 18(4) of the act; that the appellant having earned the dual priority on the impugned mark can neither have caused confusion or deception to the consumers ..... having regard to the said dual priority, the trade mark oflex be granted registration under clause (a) of section 34 of the act and that the appellant craves leave to file form tm-16 to correct/amend under section 22 of the act the correct date of user which is 28.11.2000. 4. the respondent no.1 filed the counter- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... , passed by the registrar. 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. 10. the appeal is dismissed ..... has not only yet given any decision on the objection filed under rules 38, 39 41, 42 and 44 of the trade marks rules, 2002 read with section 19 of the act against the application no. 1219400 but has not yet even sought explanation/clarification from respondent no.2. the registrar, without deciding the said application, has allowed the ..... the written submission should be sent to the other side. 5. learned counsel for the appellant contended that the mark applied for registration being not registrable under section 9 of the act ought to have been dismissed at the outset and ought not to travel to the stages of advertising in the trade marks journal, calling tm-5 and .....
Tag this Judgment!