Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order: (147 of 2013) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman Two Larger Benches of the IPAB were constituted recently to decide two issues one relating to the IPABs power to review its own order and the other relating to IPABs power to grant interim orders pending or final application. In both, we had to consider the importance of this Tribunal and the nature of its jurisdiction, power and authority. This order relates to the power of review. 2. While hearing the review petition No.1 of 2011 in O.R.A.No. 42 of 2008/TM/CH, we referred the question whether the IPAB has the power to review its own order to a larger Bench by order dated 03.05.2013. Initially review petitions were entertained by IPAB and orders had been passed. After 2006 Review Petitions were not numbered since the then Chairman Honble Justice M.H.S.Ansari was of the opinion that in the absence of specific powers to entertain the review petitions, review petitions must not be numbered. However, when certain matters were filed seeking re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No. 174 of 2013) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member This application u/s 64 read with section 117D of the Patents Act, 1970 is filed for revocation of patent No.200249 (herein referred to as 249) granted to Aloys Wobben for invention A wind power installation and process for the operation of the same. This application for revocation was filed by Enercon India Limited. 2. From the records in Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), it was observed that this matter was heard by the earlier Board on 1.11.2010 and orders were reserved. Since the Hon'ble Technical Member Shri Chandrasekaran retired on 02.12.2010, decision was not issued. So this case was listed to be heard again. In the meantime, the matter was transferred to the new counsel for the respondents. On completion of all the formalities, the matter was heard on 16.04.201 to 17.04.2013. MP/22/2013 for stay was dismissed as not pressed. 3. Mr. R. Parthasarathy Senior Advocate appeared for the applicant and Mr. Praveen Ana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) V. Ravi, Technical Member: The appellant are aggrieved by the order of the Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi dated 3rd December, 1997 refusing application no 447061 in Class 9 in respect of the trade mark SHARP filed on 18.12.1985 and pray for the quashing of the same. The brief facts of the case is stated below:- 1. a) The said application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and opposed by two parties. One opposition was filed by the present respondent herein under no Del-8439. The other opposition was filed by M/s Associated Electronics and Electrical (Bangalore) PVT. Ltd. under no Del.8306. b) The appellant contested both the oppositions. Opposition no. 8439 decided on 3rd December, 1997 was allowed which is the impugned order in these proceedings. The appellant had earlier filed an appeal before Honble Delhi High Court challenging this ruling but did not seek stay of the impugned order and no order of interim nature was passed by the Hon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.188/2009) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member This is an appeal against the order of the respondent dated 27.03.2009 wherein the application for patent No. IN/PCT/2001/01652/CHE filed on 26.11.2001 by Overture Services Inc., USA has been refused in the matter of pre-grant opposition by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as The Act). 2. The appellant M/s Overture Services Inc., USA have entered the national phase by filing the application for patent on 28.12.2005 relating to the international PCT application bearing No. IN/PCT/2001/1652/CHE. The instant application was published on 20.04.2007 as per the provisions of section 11A of the Act and the request for examination was filed by the applicant on 14.05.2004. The application was duly examined by the respondent and the third party intervention opponent M/s Rediff.com India Limited of Mumbai entered into a pre-grant opposition under section 25(1)...
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
ORDER (No.186/2009) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member: 1. This is an application for revocation of patent No.214388 under section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to the Act). In the said revocation application the petitioner filed 2 Miscellaneous petitions, one being a stay application (M.P. No.12 of 2009) and another application for urgent and early hearing (M.P. No.11 of 2009). M.P. No.11 of 2009 was heard on or about July 13, 2009 and the Appellate Board passed a stay order suspending the operation of the patent till the hearing of the stay petition. By an order dated July 15, 2009 the Honble Madras High Court had set aside the order dated 13/07/2009 of the Appellate Board and directed the IPAB to hear the stay application expeditiously within three weeks. As per the High Court orders, the M.P. No.26/2009 was filed for urgent hearing and listed today. Thus the matter was placed before us on September 7, 2009. 2. The reply to the stay petition was due on August 5, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at New Delhi) Honble Shri Z. S. Negi, Chairman: This order disposes of the above two rectification applications filed by the applicant for the removal of trade marks MARDAN NO.1 and MARDAN, respectively, 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) and the M.P. No.58/2008 filed by the respondents to 5 for taking its evidence and additional documents on record. During the pendency of the rectification applications, Sardar Upkar Singh, the respondents died on 3.11.2006 and the legal representatives of the deceased respondents filed miscellaneous petitions being M.P. Nos. 7 and 8 /2007 under rule 24 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003 for continuation of proceedings and the amendment of cause titles in the pending rectification applications were allowed vide order dated 9.8.2007. Since the facts of both the matters and issues invol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) Honble Shri Z.S. Negi, Chairman: This is an appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks whereby the Interlocutory Petition dated 8.8.2005, filed by the respondent No.2 herein in rectification No. AMD-60931 to registered trade mark No. 535953B in class 3 was allowed and further evidence filed by the registered proprietor taken on record and liberty given to the appellant herein to file rebuttal within 30 days from the receipt of the impugned order dated 3.5.2006. 2. The appellant herein, claiming to be the subsequent proprietor of the trade mark AJANTA under Nos. 191915 as of 3.9.1959 in class 21 in respect of brushes included in class 21, 220724 as of 19.2.1964 in class 3 in respect of non-medicated toilet preparations, cosmetics, perfumes and 344242 as of 18.12.1978 in class 21 in respect of tooth brushes included in clas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No. 189/2012) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents): 1. This appeal is from the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated 27th November, 2008 in post grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Act to revoke the grant of patent 201020 (Application No.860/CHENP/2003) relating to Method and Apparatus for locating inclusions in a Diamond. The patentees are M/s Diamcad N.V. BELGIUM. and Mr. Sivovolenko Serguei Borisovish, Russia. M/s Sarin Technologies, an Israeli Company has opposed the grant of this patent. They succeeded before Assistant Controller, who has upheld submission relating to anticipation and insufficiency. The patentee request for amending the claims was not allowed by the Assistant Controller as he held that revised sets of claims are not fairly supported by the description and requires addition of new subject matter for enabling a person skilled in the art to perform the invention independently. Therefore, it cannot be allowed in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order (No.173/2009) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is an appeal under section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 27th March, 2009 passed by the respondent No.2. 2. The Registry on scrutiny of this case raised the objection that this appeal is not admissible before this Appellate Board as the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is under section 25(1) of the Act, and the Registry considered this appeal as an appeal against third party intervention opposition under section 25(1) of the Act, 1970, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. This fact was clarified by the counsel for the appellants that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 under section 25(1) of the Act which provides him a right of appeal to the Appellate Board under section 117A of the Act and thus, the Appellate Board is having necessary jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal....
Tag this Judgment!