Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Honble Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member: This is an application for revocation of patent No.204322 granted in the name of Valasumani Lathe Works, Sivagiri, Erode District, Tamil Nadu, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) registered under section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the applicant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had applied for a patent for an invention titled IMPROVED THRESHING AND SEPARATING MACHINE, and the same was granted under number 204322 (921/CHE/2004) on 13th February, 2007. Based on this patent, the respondent claimed that he filed a patent infringement suit being OS NO.243/2007 against this applicant which is pending before the District Judge, Erode. 3. The applicant stated that they are the leading manufacturers and marketers of agricultural implements such as paddy threshers, groundnut degadicator, paddy cleaner, de-stoner, neem seed degadicator, paddy threshing machine and so man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
HONBLE SHRI (DR.) P.C. CHAKRABORTI, TECHNICAL MEMBER: By this order we dispose of five appeal Nos. TA/1 to 5/2007/PT/CH and miscellaneous petition Nos. 1 to 5/2007 in TA/1 to 5/2007/PT/CH filed by the appellant seeking stay of operation of the impugned orders and miscellaneous petition No.33/2008 in TA/1/2007/PT/CH filed by the respondent No.3. This common order is being passed because the above five appeals are preferred by a single Appellant against the five almost identical orders passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs deciding five pre-grant oppositions to the grant of a patent to the Appellant and in all the five appeals the issues are almost identical and the appeals were heard together. 2. BACKGROUND The Appellant, a Swiss pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and medicinal products including anti-cancer drugs, filed an application for patent on 17.7.1998 claiming Switzerland priority date of 18.7.1997 for an invention ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at New Delhi) Honble Shri Z. S. Negi, Chairman: The above two rectification applications are filed by the same applicant for removal of the registration of trade marks P.P. Mall under No. 1308303 in class 37 and P.P.Shopping Mall under No. 1308302 in class 37, respectively, registered in the name of the respective respondents in the applications, or to rectify the register under section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. During the pendency of the applications, the respondent/petitioner in both the applications has filed miscellaneous petitions in both the rectification applications being M.P. No. 84/2008 and M.P. No. 85/2008 seeking direction of this Appellate Board to the applicant/respondent that it must follow the procedure and method laid down in section 124 of the Act. It is stated that averment in paragraph 8 (f) of the respective rectification application have been made that the applicant has been extremely vigilant in safeg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Honble Shri Z. S. Negi, Chairman: These two applications are for the removal of the trademarks ULTRAFILTER under Nos. 805999 and 803449, respectively, from the register or rectification of the register under section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is stated in the applications that the applicant is a German Company of international repute, known world over for the high quality of its products range which comprises of various kinds of filters, etc. It is further stated that Ultrafilter GmbH, the predecessor in title of the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the predecessor), adopted ULTRAFILTER as the trade mark and as part of its name; obtained registration of the said trade mark in several countries and has built up a substantial name and reputation for its products. The trade mark has been widely used on the goods manufactured by the applicant and the predecessor; the predecessor commenced supply of its products to several leading compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi) ORDER (No.220/2009) Z.S. Negi, Chairman: 1. The above rectification application is filed for the removal of the trade mark 444 (registered under No.752854) 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. The case of the applicant, Smt. Neeta Thapar W/o Shri Prem Sagar, trading as M/s. P.K. Overseas is that she is the registered subsequent proprietor of trade mark 444 in respect of Rice for sale in India and for export in class 30. The trade mark 444 is stated to be conceived and adopted by the predecessor of the applicant, namely, M/s. Thapar Agro Mills Ltd., Ludhiana [formerly known as Thapsons (India) Ltd.] in the year 1984 and the said predecessor is concerned with the business of Rice, food grains and other products since the year 1984. It is stated that the predecessor company obtained registration of trade mark 444 under Nos. 455752 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Honble Shri S.Chandrasekaran, Technical Member : This Miscellaneous Petition No. 26/2008 has been filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in the main appeal No. TA/7/07/PT/DEL. 2. M/s Ajanta Pharma Limited, being the appellant filed an appeal under section 116 (2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (in short the principal Act) against the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 22.03.2007, in an opposition to the patent application No. 85/DEL/95 by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970, [as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act)] before the Honble High Court of Delhi bearing No. FAO 136/2007 and CM 5192/2007. The said appeal is a transferred to this Appellate Board under section 117G of the Patents Act, 1970. 3. An application for patent titled Tetracyclic derivatives, processes for preparation and use was filed on 23.01.1995 by Laboratories Glaxo S.A., of France and the application was assigned to M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Kolkata) ORDER:- (227 of 2013) V. Ravi Technical Member I. The appellant herein are aggrieved by the refusal of the opposition filed by them against the registration of the trade mark application No.1255896 of the respondent by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata and have filed the instant appeal to set aside the order and decision dated 3rd July, 2007 permitting the registration of the respondents trade mark abt SONY in class 25. The particulars and the grounds of the appeal are briefly as follows: II. The appellant is a world famous Japanese Company with subsidiaries and affiliates all over the globe. III. They are the registered proprietor of the trade mark SONY in India in classes 3, 9, 14, 21 and 25. The appellants mark SONY is an internationally well known trade mark used and registered in over 200 countries. According to a survey conducted by Harris Interactive in 2006, Sony was registered as the Best Brand in USA for the 7th consecutive year w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(No.132/2011) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: 1. The applicants are the proprietors of the Trademark SATMOLA in classes 5 and 30 for Ayurvedic medicines. It is an old and established business as manufacturers and merchants of ayurvedic medicinal preparations. The applicants predecessor was one Shiv Shankar Ghore wala who had adopted and used the trademark SATMOLA in the year 1983 and assigned it to the applicants by an assignment deed dated 196.2001. Since then the applicants have been using the mark openly continuously and extensively. The applicants have also filed various applications for registration of their mark SATMOLA in various classes. The applicants label/pouch has a device of a boy and a girl, a combination of yellow and red colour and other distinctive features it is registered under the Copyright act. 2. The impugned mark is a dishonest adoption of the applicants trademark. It is not distinctive. The applicant is the prior user. The user claimed since 1996 is wrong. It must be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
HONBLE Z.S.NEGI, CHAIRMAN This is an application for removal of the trade mark, Ayurgreen under No. 1308475 in class 05 registered in the name of the respondent, from the register or rectification of the register under section 47/57/125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is stated that M/s. Three-N-Products, applicant herein, was initially a partnership firm which converted into a Private Limited company with effect from 4.12.1991 and all the three partners became the promoters and directors thereof. The reference to the applicants hereinafter may be construed as including the aforementioned partnership firm as predecessor of the applicants. The applicants are carrying on an old and established business of manufacturing and marketing of bleaching preparations, cleansing, soaps, cosmetics, hair lotions, essential oils, scouring, kumkum, nail polish, shampoo, agarbatti and dhoop, heena, hair wash, mint water, triphala water, rose water, neem water, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA) ORDER (02 of 2014) Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 20/10/2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, disallowing the opposition No.CAL-156852 and allowing the application No.673973 in class 9 to proceed to registration under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The 1st respondent herein filed an application for registration of the trademark VOLTA under No.673973 in class 9 on 21/7/1995 in respect of œlead acid accumulator?. The trademark was proposed to be used on the date of application. On 20/05/2003, the 1st respondent filed a request in Form T.M.16 for amending the date of user to be read as 01/04/1990. The request for amendment was allowed on 06/06/2003. The trademark was thereafter advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. Mega I Vol.D at page no.392 dated 25/08/2003. 3. The appellant herein filed the notice of opposition in Form T.M.5 opposing t...
Tag this Judgment!