Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... we will deal with each in the light of pleadings and records before us. 9. ..... in the light of various bills and invoices there is no doubt that the impugned mark has been used in the market by the registered proprietor. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(circuit bench sitting at delhi) order (no.256/2010) s. usha, vice-chairman tra/11/2005/tm/del 1. this is an application for removal of the trade mark registered under no.214282 b in class 25 under section 56 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act). 2. the brief facts of the case are as follows: - the applicant is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of foot wears. the applicant is carrying on the business under the name and style of liberty foot wear company, a partnership firm. the applicant has been using the trade mark force 10 in respect of foot wears since the year 1990. the applicant has filed an application for registration of the trade mark force 10 under no. 553998 in class 25 for foot wears of all kinds and the application is pending for registration. 3. the applicant has sold their goods bearing the trade mark force 10 since 1990 and their sales turn over runs into more than ` 38.0 crores. the public and trade associate the trade mark force 10 with the applicants and with none else. 4. the respondent no. 1 is claiming to have acquired registration of the trade mark force under no. 214282 in class 25 as of 13.03.1963. the respondent no. 1 in fact is not using the trade mark since the last many years for more than five years and one month from the date of filing this petition and is, therefore, liable to be cancelled under the provisions of sections 46 and 56 of the act. 5. the applicant and the respondent no. 1 are engaged .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
order (no. 41 of 2013) ms. s. usha, vice chairman: the applicant/petitioner herein filed the instant miscellaneous petition for taking on record the affidavit of mr.harne vinay chandrakant and to pass such further orders. 2. the grounds of the miscellaneous petition are that one mr. t.s.rajagopalan had left the services of the applicant company on 22.01.2009 and that the respondents had intimated the applicants that they wish to cross examine the deponent of the revocation petition. therefore, the applicants had filed an affidavit of mr.harne vinay chandrakant to prove the contents of the application. the affidavit which is filed now is for certain expert opinion as to the validity of the patent. 3. the affidavit also gives the details about the qualification of the deponent. mr.chandrakant is a mechanical engineer from the gujarat university and has done his post-graduation (m-tech) at iit, madras. he joined the applicant company as a research development officer in the year 1982. he is involved in all the new engines developed by the company. he is therefore an expert in the field of internal combustion of engine. 4. the documents filed were already served on the respondents and the respondents cannot be said to have been taken by surprise by these documents. this board has powers under section 92(2) of the trade marks act, 1999 to receive evidence and to issue commission for examination of witnesses. though this board is not bound by the code of civil procedure, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
order (no.255 of 2012) honble smt. justice prabha sridevan: payyannur is a territory in the kannur district of kerala. the product for which geographical indication was granted is a finger ring made of gold and silver which is totally hand made. this appeal is against the order passed on 14.07.2009 in an opposition proceedings no.gir/top 2/347/09 granting g.i. registration of payyannur pavithra ring in the name of respondent. the appellant is a third party to the above proceedings. by virtue of the order passed by the honble madras high court in w.p.897/2010, he has filed this appeal. the 1st respondent has been granted the g.i. registration. 2. the applicant/1st respondent claimed that it represents the interests of producers of the ring and prayed for granting gi. the application was made by payyannur pavithra ring artisans and development society and it was signed by the president for payyannur pavithra ring artisans and development society. the applicant payyannur pavithra ring artisans and development society claimed to be a registered association of the producers and traders of the ring. the geographical indication identifies and indicates the manufactured goods as originating in payyannur. 3. one k. balakrishnan, the proprietor of lakshmi jewellery filed his opposition. according to him, the pavithra ring came into existence not in 1792 but in 1794. it was not kelappan perumthattan who made the ring first but mavichery thekke veetil chandu velichapatan who made it. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
circuit bench sitting at kolkata order (no. 186/2011) prabha sridevan, chairman: 1. the appellants application no.609360 for registration of the label mark hero in class 34, was rejected. use of the word hero was claimed from 1942, but the application was proposed to be used it was advertised subject to association with the appellants earlier registered trademark under no.7657 in class 34. the respondent lodged its notice of opposition, the registrar was not inclined to exercise his discretion in favour of registration and was of the opinion there was dishonesty in adoption. aggrieved by this order dated 29.04.2005 the present appeal has been filed. 2. the notice of opposition raised the following grounds to resist the registration of the mark hero . the respondents are an international company of considerable repute and their business includes sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products they are the owners of the trademark hero and other variations of it and they have been registered or/are pending registrations in countries the world over. the first of them is the indonesian mark no: 62770 dated december 10, 1957. their mark in no: 589487 dated january 28, 1993 is earlier to the appellants by nine months. their claim of user is prior to the appellants. the claim of user has no factual basis, and to reinforce an obviously weak case, the appellant has attempted to use it in connection with an earlier mark, which was not in use, in any event the word hero is not the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... when the material on record in the present case is considered in the light of the principles laid down in the above cited cases, it is clear that so far as the registration of copyright and the artistic work of the petitioners and the respondent is concerned, the publication of artistic work of the respondent as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
circuit sitting at mumbai order(no.94/2012) prabha sridevan: 1. this rectification application is filed for removal of the mark no.885050 manikchand . in the name of rasiklal manikchand dhariwal (h.u.f.) in class 14. 2. the applicant is carrying on business in guwahati. their predecessor in interest was one manikchand soni, a goldsmith and dealing in goods and services covered by class 14 of the fourth schedule of the trade marks rules, 2002 under the name and style of manikchand nandkishore soni and has been using manikchand as the trade mark/name and/or trading style since 1947. in 1998 the applicant company was formed and the trade mark was transmitted to the company. the respondents have registered the mark in class 14 without any bonafide intention to use the same in relation to the goods and services. the registration was effected from 3.11.1999 and there has been no bonafide use of the mark by the respondents in relation to the said goods or services up to a date of three months before the date of the application and also for a continuous period of five years from the date on which the trade mark was entered in the register. along with the statement of case, the applicant filed annexure a to i. 3. the respondents filed their counter statement denying the allegations of non use. according to them two user agreements were executed on 10.2.2006, one in favour of zee bangles and the other in favour of m/s. sanjay jewellers . the said user agreements were lodged for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(circuit bench sitting at delhi) order (no.115/2010) z. s. negi, chairman 1. this is an appeal preferred under section 91 of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act) against the order dated 16.6.2004 passed by the assistant registrar of trade marks, delhi whereby he dismissed the opposition and ordered application to proceed for registration. the appellant has, along with the appeal, filed stay application being m.p. no. 82/2004 praying that during the pendency of the appeal the registrar of trade marks delhi be restrained /injuncted from issuing the certificate of registration in respect of application no. 753365b in class12 to the respondent and stay in toto the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 16.6.2004. this appellate board after hearing counsel of both the parties passed order in the said m.p. on 4.12.2004 permitting the assistant registrar to proceed with other formalities excepting the issue of certificate of registration until further orders or till disposal of the appeal. 2. the case of the appellant- a firm trading in the name and style as m/s. ajay auto products- is that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing auto parts for motor land vehicles including ball bearings and roller bearings of all kinds, clutch and clutch parts, wheel parts and suspension parts, etc. for more than three decades. it is the registered proprietor of the trade mark ajay under registration nos.338371 as of 11.7.1978 in respect of auto parts for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
honble shri z. s. negi, chairman: the above two rectification applications are filed by the same applicant seeking removal of two trade marks milka wonder cake under no. 1242328 and milka wonder cake under no. 732507, registered in the name of the respondent herein, from the register of trade marks or rectification of the register under section 47/57/125 of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act). 2. since the facts of both the cases and issues involved therein are similar we will, for the sake of convenience, state the brief facts of one case, i.e. ora/2005/2007/tm/ch. the applicant, a private limited company incorporated in the year 1987 under the companies act, 1956 has sought removal of the above named trade mark on various grounds under section 57 read with sections 9,11 and 18 of the act. the respondent filed their counter-statement denying the material averments made in the application and raising objection at the outset in the counter-statement that the application is not maintainable on the ground that the board of directors of the applicant company has not passed resolution authorizing mr. k. jayakrishnan to institute the rectification proceedings against the respondent. 3. during the pendency of the rectification proceedings, a miscellaneous petition (m.p.) accompanying an affidavit of mr. a. arumugam, the other director of the applicant company, seeking withdrawal of the rectification application or dismissal thereof as withdrawn was filed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... however, in the light of submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in relation to use of trade mark and the volume of business the respondent no.1 is doing, it will be difficult to say that no prejudice or injury will be caused to the respondent no.1 by staying .....
Tag this Judgment!