Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... a respondent can be made by the applicant with the permission/direction of the court/tribunal and not otherwise. without carrying out any physical amendment in the application, the amendment cannot be deemed to be carried out and also the tribunal has no inherent power or discretion to admit the counter statement filed by ..... order by the assistant registrar in the impugned interlocutory application but the assistant registrar exercised such power in this behalf which is not authorized by the act or the rules. learned counsel placing reliance upon the judgment of the division bench of gujarat high court in chimanlal chheldas patel v. lilachand veniram panchal ..... passed or decision made by the court, tribunal or authority under a statute. the term order or decision has not been defined either in the trade marks act. 1999 or in the intellectual property appellate board (procedure) rules, 2003 in which the term occur. according to oxford advanced learners dictionary, order means something .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... as annexure-a, (ii) certificate of registration of trade mark and other documents filed as annexure a/1(1) to a/1(v), certificate registration of copyright and amendment filed as annexure a/2 (1) to a/2 (iv), certificate of trade marks filed as annexure a/3 (1) to a/3 (iv), advertisement filed ..... registration was received. the registration of trade mark of the respondent is prima facie evidence of validity of such registration as contemplated under section 31 of the act. it is submitted that the respondent after receipt of the certificate of registration started marketing the rice under the trade mark 444 through the associate / family ..... circumstances existed to permit registration to the respondent. it was neither the case of the respondent that its mark should be registered under section 12 of the act nor the registrar of trade marks had occasion to consider any special circumstances /ground to grant the impugned registration. therefore, the impugned registration is in contravention .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... 1 for the period from 19.12.1985 to 19.1.1988 is anyway, protected under section 46 (3) of the act on account of injunction order. the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief of amendment of the petition under the provisions of code of civil procedures and therefore is liable to be dismissed. 18. we have heard ..... rectification petition was filed before the honble high court of delhi and subsequently transferred to this appellate board due to the provisions of section 100 of the trade mark act, 1999. 27. the matter was heard and decided by the board dismissing the rectification petition on the only issue of non user. the petitioner herein challenged the said ..... filed another rectification petition under c.o. no.6 of 1987 for rectification of the trade mark relating to the same registered trade mark under the provisions of the act. in the said petition, the petitioner had also stated that the impugned trade mark was never used by the erstwhile proprietors mainly m/s. jain industries in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... agreement is without any basis as the former was signed on 17.2.86 and the later was signed on 16.10.86. the agreement has been acted upon as the amendments carried out, notably article 43, in the articles of association of the respondent is testimony to this fact. the respondent has been using the trade ..... in terms of the name protection agreement, the distribution agreement and the trade marks registered user agreement. another annexure to the said agreement was the text of amendments to be carried out to the respondents articles of association. though the text of the aforesaid three agreements to the shareholders partnership agreement were approved and agreed to ..... were filed in the name of predecessor. it is claimed that the fact that both the respondent and mr. kini acted upon pursuant to the agreement is apparent from several circumstances such as the proposed amendments to the articles of association were placed before the general body meeting of the respondent held on 7.11.1986, which .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... trade mark no. 427532 in class 11 from the register of trade marks. 28. the applicant had also filed a miscellaneous petition no. 119/09 for amendment of the applicants name from the jay engineering works limited to usha international limited. the jay engineering works under the scheme of amalgamation dated 26.05.2008 ..... the same was admitted by the respondent in their letter dated 11.11.1987 which the respondent has not rebutted in his counter statement. the malafide act of the respondent by non-disclosure of the consent letter to the trade marks registry while obtaining registration makes the original registration bad and liable to be ..... business of manufacturing and selling of sewing machines, fans, fuel injection systems and parts thereof. the applicants and the respondents were associated in business. they had acted together in taking action against various third parties from infringing or registering any trade mark usha-shriram (words or logo) used in combination or separately. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... been introduced, namely, a pre-grant opposition and post-grant opposition under section 25 of the patents act, 1970 (as amended by the patents amendment act, 2005). consequently, in the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2005 there does not lie any appeal to the party aggrieved in the pre-grant opposition under ..... coming under the category of pre-grant opposition by way of third party intervention opposition as provided under section 25(1) of the act, as amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2005, to be finally regarded as non appealable proceeding for the party who is aggrieved, when the hearing in respect ofopposition proceedings ..... have been conducted and finalised after the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2005 came into force. the general rule is that statutes are not to be construed as having retrospective operation unless such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... part or his heirs, successors, or assigns for all losses, costs, damages including liquidated damages. 10. the parties have agreed to do all necessary or required acts, deeds and execute all such documents and papers including applications to registrar of trade marks as may be necessary to give effect to these presents with utmost dispatch. ..... tm 24 for registering themselves as subsequent proprietors. tm 36 for striking out the goods, tm 17 for the issue of certificate under section 39(2) of the act. the registrar, without issuing any notice to the applicants, passed orders in all the three applications submitted by the respondents no. 1 and 2. consequently, the ..... was no assignment in favour of those respondents. to endorse the assumed assigned right, the respondents did not file the necessary applications as contemplated under the said act. the signature of the assignor or the consent application by the assignor as well as the assignee ought to have been filed. the respondents, on their own .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the facts of the case is that: 2. the original application is for revocation of the patent no. 196774 under the provisions of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. 3. the applicant herein filed a miscellaneous petition no. 33/2013 for taking on record 12 additional documents. the respondents filed their counter ..... . 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) by ..... 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 itself .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the honble appellate board or before a high court in an invalidity proceeding in a suit for infringement. there is no provision in the act which entitles the appellant to seek amendment in an appeal arising out of post-grant decision. 76. we do not agree with the argument of the respondent 2 that board has ..... patent discloses a method for accurately measuring the depth location of the impurities in a diamond using microscope by taking direct measurement (perpendicular to observation) to focus successively on the surface of the diamond and on the lower point of the inclusion and indirect measurement where impurities are observed through a face under which they mirror ..... . such a case is unlike an action for money or recovery of property, where the execution of the trial decree may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal may result in refund of the money or restitution of the property, with appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne profits for the period of deprivation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... pleadings and documents. 24. the application for rectification has necessarily to be filed by an aggrieved person alone. the term aggrieved person though has not been defined in the act, it has to be liberally construed. a person in the same trade with a deceptively similar trade mark is said to be a person aggrieved. in the instant case, ..... singh word per se was refused registration, for which reason the trade mark ought to be removed. the registration is opposed under section 9(1)(a) of the act. the impugned trade mark singh, singh mehandi industries is common to trade and is being used by several other traders even before the 1st respondent could adopt the trade ..... the applicant is also carrying on business in the name of raju singh . 8. the 1st respondent instituted a false compliant under sections 103 and 104 of the act against the applicant. in this connection, the central crime branch sought for an opinion from the registrar of trade marks and the registrar opined that the use of raju .....
Tag this Judgment!