Court : Trademark
Decided on : Dec-21-2006
Reported in : (2007)(34)PTC288Reg
..... of pavunny ouseph v.registrar of trade marks air 1952 travancore 77 in support of his arguments and contention.5. mr. bansal stated that sub-section (1) of section 21 of trade marks act, 1999, permits the filing of an extension of an application beyond the three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in ..... only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed any time limit for filing the application for extension of time. besides, section 21(1) of the act specifically allows filing of a notice of opposition beyond the period of three months as long as it not exceeding one month in the aggregate. therefore, ..... application beyond the three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in aggregate. it is evident from the plain reading of section 21(1) of the act that the legislature has not intended to prescribe the time limit of only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Aug-29-2006
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC536Reg
..... that the period should be counted from the date of despatch of journal containing such advertisement to the subscribers.5. mr. bansal stated that sub-section (1) of section 21 of trade marks act, 1999, permits the filing of an extension of an application beyond the three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in ..... opponents submitted a detailed reply under their letter dated 7th july, 2006 stating that the maximum period of four months prescribed by the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act read with sub-rule (1) of rule 47 of trade marks, 2002 is well within the prescribed time and notice of opposition along with a ..... application beyond the three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in aggregate. it is evident from the plain reading of section 21(1) of the act that the legislature has not intended to prescribed the time limit of only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jun-19-2006
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC531Reg
..... attorneys, new delhi instructed by the above named opponents submitted a detailed reply under their attorneys' letter dated 13th october, 2005 stating that sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act does not prohibit filing of a request on form tm-44 before the expiry of four months period from the date of publication of the application ..... appeared on behalf of the opponents in the matter.4. mr. hemant singh, advocate, the learned counsel for the opponents submitted that sub-section (1) of section 21 of the trade marks act, 1999 permits the filing of an extension of an application beyond three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in the ..... three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed any time limit for filing the application for extension of time. besides, section 21(1) of the act specifically allows filing of a notice of opposition beyond the period of three months as long as it not exceeding one month in the aggregate. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jun-19-2006
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC263Reg
..... trade marks air 1952 travancore 77 in support of his contention.5. mr. goel, advocate, the learned counsel for the opponent submitted that sub-section (1) of section 21 of the trade marks act, 1999 permits the filing of an extension of an application beyond three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in the ..... application beyond the three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in aggregate. it is evident from the plain reading of section 21(1) of the act that the legislature has not intended to prescribed the time limit of only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed ..... three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed any time limit for filing the application for extension of time. besides, section 21(1) of the act specifically allows filing of a notice of opposition beyond the period of three months as long as it not exceeding one month in the aggregate. therefore .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : May-31-2006
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC517Reg
..... only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed any time limit for filing the application for extension of time. besides, section 21(1) of the act specifically allows filing of a notice of opposition beyond the period of three months as long as it is not exceeding one month in the aggregate. therefore ..... four months of the date the journal is made available to the public. further, on a plain reading of the rule 47(1) 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 for seeking an extension of time, beyond ..... extension application beyond the three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in aggregate. it is evident from the plain reading of section 21(1) of the act that the legislature has not intended to prescribe the time limit of only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Mar-27-2006
Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC713Reg
..... -56 dated 9.2.2004 and thereafter dated 16.3.2004 and invited my attention to rule 50 of the trade marks rules, 2002 as well as section (sic) of the trade marks act, 1999 and requested for dismissal of the review petition with cost as there is no apparent mistake on the face of the record.10. shri o.p ..... in law, it must be taken that the legislature has attacked to that term that known legal significance. hence, it would appear that the term "review" in section 127(c) of the trade marks act, 1999 must be construed as having the same legal meaning as in order 47 rule 1 of civil procedure code.6. under order 47 rule 1 of civil procedure code, a ..... dharamshala, yusufpur, mohamadabad, distt, ghazipur, u.p - 23227, objecting to the registration of the aforesaid mark of the applicant under sections 9, 11(a), 11(c), 12(1), 12(3) and 18(1) of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958. the counter-statement was filed by the applicant on 23rd april, 2003 denying all the material averments in the notice .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jan-31-2006
Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC510Reg
..... of opposition or evidence in support of opposition or in support of application or evidence in reply or for adjournment of hearing cannot be granted under section 131(1) of the act, therefore, section 131(1) read with rule 105, is a bar for the grant of extension in the opposition proceedings particularly, when the extension of one month ..... terms, said otherwise, 40. the trade marks rules, 2002 is part of the statute as the same has been enacted under section 157 of the trade marks act, 1999 itself.sub-section (2)(vii) of section 157 specifically, says that rules may provide the manner of making an application and fee payable for such application for giving notice under ..... the trade marks rules, 2002 set under the statute are merely procedural and not meant for orderly compliance, 4. whether by virtue of the provisions of section 131(1) of the act, the registrar is empowered to enlarge the aggregate of time limit of three months prescribed in rule 50(1) of the trade marks rules, 2002 more .....
Tag this Judgment!