Array ( [0] => ..... and orders were reserved. 5. we have heard the counsel for petitioner/respondent shri shailen bhatia. 6. the learned counsel submitted that as per the provisions of section 92 of the act, the appellate board is vested with the powers of a civil court and has the powers to review its own decision or order under order 47 rule 1 ..... regard to the judgments relied on by the counsel under the motor vehicles act as well as under the industrial disputes act, the powers to review before the tribunal were said to be vested with the tribunal as decided in those cases. as regards the motor vehicles act - section 169 it is said that the powers were vested with the claim tribunal ..... as that of a civil court to receive documents, summoning of witness and as per the provisions of section 195 of the cpc. the observation of the division bench of the high ..... [1] => ..... 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, ..... [2] => ..... in fact the respondent has been using the trade mark and has conducted huge sales. the registrations granted are not in contravention of the provisions of sections 9, 11 and 18 of the act. the rest of the grounds are denied by the respondent. 10. we have heard shri sushant singh learned counsel for the applicant and shri mohan ..... are deceptively similar; iii) because the impugned trade mark has not acquired any distinctiveness; iv) because the impugned registration is contrary to the provisions of sections 9,11 and 18 of the act; v) because the impugned mark did not have any user at the time of filing of application for registration; vi) because the impugned trade mark ..... s. usha, vice-chairman 1. this application for removal of the trade mark registered under no.1240033 in class 34 under sections 47/57/125 of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act).m.p.no.128/09 has been filed to stay/restrain the effect and operation of the registered trade mark during the pendency ..... [3] => ..... -off the prior user gets a valid title than the subsequent user. therefore, the registration of the impugned trade mark is prohibited of registration under section 11(e) of the act which would be disentitled to protection in a court. 20. the other issue is regarding prohibition of registration of identical or deceptively similar trade marks. ..... in our considered opinion is squarely applicable to the case on hand and we, therefore, uphold the view of the registrar as regards the objection under section 11 of the act. 18. in the case of pharmaceutical products the test of comparison is strictly applied. the registrar is imposed greater responsibility for the assessment of the ..... 15. the trade mark applied for registration is to be seen if it qualifies for registration as per the provisions of section 9 of the act. a mark qualifies for registration under section 9 of the act only if the mark is distinctive of the goods or is capable of being distinguished. the mark is adapted to distinguish ..... [4] => ..... stay. 10. in reply, the counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no provision for stay of the rectification application. the counsel relied on the provisions of section 57 (3) of the act. the counsel then relied on two judgements 2009 (41) ptc 558 (cb) kusha inc., vs sachdeva and sons industries pvt. ltd., (ii) 2008 (37) ..... be entertained. 6. the respondent further stated that there is no provision for grant of stay against a registered trade mark except in a suit. sections 95 and 124 of the act pertains to stay of proceedings in a different matter and not in the present application. as regards the allegation claiming dilution, blurring of goodwill and ..... has been filed for removal of the trade mark lacnor registered under no. 927139 in class 29 under the provision of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the applicants have filed a miscellaneous petition no. 262/2009 seeking an order of stay of the registration and order that the impugned registration ..... [5] => ..... the appellant for verifying the records as to whether notice on form o-3 was issued was not considered and decided by the registrar. the counsel relied on section 25(3) of the act and rule 64(1) of the rules. the counsel finally relied on the judgement reported in 1983 ptc 55 abdul karim sahib and sons, etc., tiruchirapalli vs. the ..... present appellant on 05.03.2004. on 27.05.2004, the recordal of the subsequent proprietor was brought to our notice. the counsel submitted that a notice under section 57(4) of the act was issued on 30.12.2004. on 19.01.2005, the respondent no. 1 had written a letter to the respondent no. 2 regarding the conduct of the ..... .12.21999 to 26/12/2006. the respondent no. 2 herein upon the representation made by the respondent no. 1 issued a notice dated 20.12.2004 under section 57 (4) of the act calling upon the appellant to show cause why the entry relating to the said trade mark be not cancelled from the register for non-payment of the renewal ..... [6] => ..... the main issue for consideration would be to decide whether the applicant is a person aggrieved to file a petition for rectification. as per the provisions of section 21 of the act, any person may oppose an application for registration, whereas an application for rectification can be filed only by a person aggrieved. 38. any trader who is ..... said trade mark force 10. it is also pertinent to mention that this registration being more than 10 years old and duly renewed is conclusively valid under section 32 of the act which confers upon the respondent exclusive right to use the said trade mark in relation to their goods to the exclusion of all others. 25. the ..... 13.03.1963 and is still valid and subsisting. the applicant has acquired exclusive right to the use of the said trade mark within the meaning of section 28 of the act. 17. the applicants trade mark has become distinctive and is associated with the aforesaid goods mentioned on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive use ..... [7] => ..... filed by the applicant. 75. however, the amendments which have been proposed must be complying with the requirements of section 59 of the act. section 59 (1) of the act reads as follows: hence from the above section 59 of the act, permissible amendments could be as follows:- 1. amendment must be by way disclaimer, correction, clarification or explanation; ..... allowed. moreover the revised amended claim 1 does not fall wholly within the scope of the claim of the specification before the amendment as required under section 59 of the act. these requirements have not been met, in a sincere and genuine manner by respondent. we refuse the amendment sought and accordingly, the amendments sought ..... and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then ..... [8] => ..... allowed. moreover the revised amended claim 1 does not fall wholly within the scope of the claim of the specification before the amendment as required under section 59 of the act. these requirements have not been met, in a sincere and genuine manner by respondent. we do not find any reason for refusing the amendment sought ..... claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specifiation before the amendment. 69 hence from the above section 59 of the act, permissible amendments could be as follows:- 1. amendment must be by way disclaimer, correction, clarification or explanation; 2. the amendment must be for incorporation of ..... the legality and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then the ..... [9] => ..... amended claims do not fall wholly within the scope of the claims prior to amendment. b. respondent submit that revised claims are fully in compliance with section 59 of the patents act. section 59 states that "not in substance disclosed or shown in the specification". the revisions made in the claims are clearly shown in the original fig. 3 ..... the legality and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then the ..... energy sectors in india and they manufacture and install wind turbines all over india and thus they are an interest person within the meaning of the section 64 of the act. 4 the respondent challenged the competency of the signatory to the application for revocation and the same was heard by this appellate board and passed an ..... ) Explosives Act 1884 Section 4 Definitions - Sortby Recent - Court Intellectual Property Appellate Board Ipab - Page 9 - Judgments | SooperKanoon Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: intellectual property appellate board ipab Page 9 of about 189 results (0.075 seconds)

Jan 27 2011 (TRI)

P.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.P. Jewellers Private Ltd.

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... and orders were reserved. 5. we have heard the counsel for petitioner/respondent shri shailen bhatia. 6. the learned counsel submitted that as per the provisions of section 92 of the act, the appellate board is vested with the powers of a civil court and has the powers to review its own decision or order under order 47 rule 1 ..... regard to the judgments relied on by the counsel under the motor vehicles act as well as under the industrial disputes act, the powers to review before the tribunal were said to be vested with the tribunal as decided in those cases. as regards the motor vehicles act - section 169 it is said that the powers were vested with the claim tribunal ..... as that of a civil court to receive documents, summoning of witness and as per the provisions of section 195 of the cpc. the observation of the division bench of the high .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 13 2011 (TRI)

Pavitar Singh, Amarjit Kaur and Harvinder Kaur Vs. Shri Gopal Shankar ...

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!
Jan 07 2011 (TRI)

M/S Shyam Traders, Lucknow Vs. Spatial Commercial (P)ltd., Agra

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... in fact the respondent has been using the trade mark and has conducted huge sales. the registrations granted are not in contravention of the provisions of sections 9, 11 and 18 of the act. the rest of the grounds are denied by the respondent. 10. we have heard shri sushant singh learned counsel for the applicant and shri mohan ..... are deceptively similar; iii) because the impugned trade mark has not acquired any distinctiveness; iv) because the impugned registration is contrary to the provisions of sections 9,11 and 18 of the act; v) because the impugned mark did not have any user at the time of filing of application for registration; vi) because the impugned trade mark ..... s. usha, vice-chairman 1. this application for removal of the trade mark registered under no.1240033 in class 34 under sections 47/57/125 of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act).m.p.no.128/09 has been filed to stay/restrain the effect and operation of the registered trade mark during the pendency .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 07 2011 (TRI)

Cadila Laboratories Limited, Ahmedabad and Another Vs. M/S. Raptakos B ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... -off the prior user gets a valid title than the subsequent user. therefore, the registration of the impugned trade mark is prohibited of registration under section 11(e) of the act which would be disentitled to protection in a court. 20. the other issue is regarding prohibition of registration of identical or deceptively similar trade marks. ..... in our considered opinion is squarely applicable to the case on hand and we, therefore, uphold the view of the registrar as regards the objection under section 11 of the act. 18. in the case of pharmaceutical products the test of comparison is strictly applied. the registrar is imposed greater responsibility for the assessment of the ..... 15. the trade mark applied for registration is to be seen if it qualifies for registration as per the provisions of section 9 of the act. a mark qualifies for registration under section 9 of the act only if the mark is distinctive of the goods or is capable of being distinguished. the mark is adapted to distinguish .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 24 2010 (TRI)

Al Buheira Lacnor Dairies Co. Ltd Vs. Ramesh Verma

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... stay. 10. in reply, the counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no provision for stay of the rectification application. the counsel relied on the provisions of section 57 (3) of the act. the counsel then relied on two judgements 2009 (41) ptc 558 (cb) kusha inc., vs sachdeva and sons industries pvt. ltd., (ii) 2008 (37) ..... be entertained. 6. the respondent further stated that there is no provision for grant of stay against a registered trade mark except in a suit. sections 95 and 124 of the act pertains to stay of proceedings in a different matter and not in the present application. as regards the allegation claiming dilution, blurring of goodwill and ..... has been filed for removal of the trade mark lacnor registered under no. 927139 in class 29 under the provision of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the applicants have filed a miscellaneous petition no. 262/2009 seeking an order of stay of the registration and order that the impugned registration .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 16 2010 (TRI)

R.K. Saraf Vs. M/S Visakha Chemicals and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... the appellant for verifying the records as to whether notice on form o-3 was issued was not considered and decided by the registrar. the counsel relied on section 25(3) of the act and rule 64(1) of the rules. the counsel finally relied on the judgement reported in 1983 ptc 55 abdul karim sahib and sons, etc., tiruchirapalli vs. the ..... present appellant on 05.03.2004. on 27.05.2004, the recordal of the subsequent proprietor was brought to our notice. the counsel submitted that a notice under section 57(4) of the act was issued on 30.12.2004. on 19.01.2005, the respondent no. 1 had written a letter to the respondent no. 2 regarding the conduct of the ..... .12.21999 to 26/12/2006. the respondent no. 2 herein upon the representation made by the respondent no. 1 issued a notice dated 20.12.2004 under section 57 (4) of the act calling upon the appellant to show cause why the entry relating to the said trade mark be not cancelled from the register for non-payment of the renewal .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 16 2010 (TRI)

M/S Liberty Footwear Company and Another Vs. M/S Force Footwear Compan ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... the main issue for consideration would be to decide whether the applicant is a person aggrieved to file a petition for rectification. as per the provisions of section 21 of the act, any person may oppose an application for registration, whereas an application for rectification can be filed only by a person aggrieved. 38. any trader who is ..... said trade mark force 10. it is also pertinent to mention that this registration being more than 10 years old and duly renewed is conclusively valid under section 32 of the act which confers upon the respondent exclusive right to use the said trade mark in relation to their goods to the exclusion of all others. 25. the ..... 13.03.1963 and is still valid and subsisting. the applicant has acquired exclusive right to the use of the said trade mark within the meaning of section 28 of the act. 17. the applicants trade mark has become distinctive and is associated with the aforesaid goods mentioned on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive use .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 02 2010 (TRI)

Enercon India Ltd. Vs. Aloys Wobben

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... filed by the applicant. 75. however, the amendments which have been proposed must be complying with the requirements of section 59 of the act. section 59 (1) of the act reads as follows: hence from the above section 59 of the act, permissible amendments could be as follows:- 1. amendment must be by way disclaimer, correction, clarification or explanation; ..... allowed. moreover the revised amended claim 1 does not fall wholly within the scope of the claim of the specification before the amendment as required under section 59 of the act. these requirements have not been met, in a sincere and genuine manner by respondent. we refuse the amendment sought and accordingly, the amendments sought ..... and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 02 2010 (TRI)

Enercon India Ltd Vs. Aloys Wobben

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... allowed. moreover the revised amended claim 1 does not fall wholly within the scope of the claim of the specification before the amendment as required under section 59 of the act. these requirements have not been met, in a sincere and genuine manner by respondent. we do not find any reason for refusing the amendment sought ..... claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specifiation before the amendment. 69 hence from the above section 59 of the act, permissible amendments could be as follows:- 1. amendment must be by way disclaimer, correction, clarification or explanation; 2. the amendment must be for incorporation of ..... the legality and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then the .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 02 2010 (TRI)

Enercon (India) Limited Vs. Aloys Wobben

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... amended claims do not fall wholly within the scope of the claims prior to amendment. b. respondent submit that revised claims are fully in compliance with section 59 of the patents act. section 59 states that "not in substance disclosed or shown in the specification". the revisions made in the claims are clearly shown in the original fig. 3 ..... the legality and/or validity of the board resolution dated 26.4.2007 cannot be questioned in the present proceedings which are instituted under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the jurisdiction to test the validity and legality of the board resolution does not rest with this appellate board. if that be so, then the ..... energy sectors in india and they manufacture and install wind turbines all over india and thus they are an interest person within the meaning of the section 64 of the act. 4 the respondent challenged the competency of the signatory to the application for revocation and the same was heard by this appellate board and passed an .....

Tag this Judgment!




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //