Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jan-22-2010
ORDER (No.19/2010) Honble Ms.S.Usha, Vice- Chairman: 1. The COD No. 13/08 is to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal in S.R. No.354/08/TM/IPAB 2. The appeal under S.R. No. 354/08 has been preferred against an order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing opposition No.MAS-58814 and allowing application No.659807 in class 16 to proceed to registration subject to amending the specification of goods in respect of Lottery Tickets included in class 16 by way of filing of Form TM-16. 3. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on the grounds that the appellant had gone on business tour abroad and came to Bangalore recently and hence the delay. The other reason is that the counsel on perusal of the instant opposition realized that the appeal was not filed and hence the delay in filing the appeal. Delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to reasons stated above. 4. The first respondent herein filed their counter statement to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jan-22-2010
ORDER (No.18/2010) Ms. S. Usha, Vice- Chairman: 1. The COD No. 12/08 is to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal in S.R. No.353/08/TM/IPAB 2. The appeal under S.R. No. 353/08 has been preferred against an order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing opposition No.MAS-58815 and allowing application No.659807 in class 16 to proceed to registration subject to amending the specification of goods in respect of Lottery Tickets included in class 16 by way of filing of Form TM-16. 3. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on the grounds that the appellant had gone on business tour abroad and came to Bangalore recently and hence the delay. The other reason is that the counsel on perusal of the instant opposition realized that the appeal was not filed and hence the delay in filing the appeal. Delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to reasons stated above. 4. The first respondent herein filed their counter statement to the condo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jan-22-2010
ORDER(No.17/2010) Ms. S. Usha, Vice- Chairman: 1. The COD No. 11/08 is to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal in S.R. No.352/08/TM/IPAB 2. The appeal under S.R. No. 352/08 has been preferred against an order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing opposition No.MAS-58817 and allowing application No.659807 in class 16 to proceed to registration subject to amending the specification of goods in respect of Lottery Tickets included in class 16 by way of filing of Form TM-16. 3. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on the grounds that the appellant had gone on business tour abroad and came to Bangalore recently and hence the delay. The other reason is that the counsel on perusal of the instant opposition realized that the appeal was not filed and hence the delay in filing the appeal. Delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to reasons stated above. 4. The first respondent herein filed their counter statement to the condon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jan-22-2010
ORDER(No.16/2010) Ms. S. Usha, Vice- Chairman: 1. The COD No. 10/08 is to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal in S.R. No.351/08/TM/IPAB 2. The appeal under S.R. No. 351/08 has been preferred against an order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing opposition No.MAS-58818 and allowing application No.659807 in class 16 to proceed to registration subject to amending the specification of goods in respect of Lottery Tickets included in class 16 by way of filing of Form TM-16. 3. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on the grounds that the appellant had gone on business tour abroad and came to Bangalore recently and hence the delay. The other reason is that the counsel on perusal of the instant opposition realized that the appeal was not filed and hence the delay in filing the appeal. Delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to reasons stated above. 4. The first respondent herein filed their counter statement to the condon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jun-17-2010
ORDER (No.137/2010) S. Usha, Vice- Chairman: 1. The instant three appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 22.09.08 passed by the second respondent rejecting the opposition Nos. MAS-51762, 52359 and 52360 against application Nos.523516,523515 and 523513 respectively in class 16 under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first respondent has filed M.P.Nos.87,88 and 89 of 2010 to take on record the additional counter statement and M.P.Nos.90,91 and 92 of 2010 to take on record the documents as additional evidence. 2. The appellant herein is the successor in tile and interest to the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts (ICFA). This Institute was founded in the year 1959 by the Financial Analysts Federation (FAF) and incorporated in 1962 in Virginia, USA with the objective of developing and administering a certification programme for investment professionals, whereunder qualified candidates who pass three levels of exam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jul-27-2010
ORDER (No.166 of 2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is a Miscellaneous Petition No.48/10 in ORA/3/2009/PT/CH, filed by the petitioner/respondent herein, for dismissal of revocation application filed by the respondent/applicant for revocating the patent No.196341, under section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The respondent and the petitioner here in this Miscellaneous Petition is Mr. Alloys Wobben who filed a patent application on 16 April, 2001 having a priority date of 29 July, 1999 based on the International Patent Application No.PCT/EP99/05434 which claims priority from a German Patent Application No.19845903.3 dated 5 October, 1998. 3. Mr. Alloys wobben was granted a patent bearing the patent No.196341 on 3 January, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the subject patent. 4. The applicant viz. Enercon (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as EIL) in the main revocation application and the respondent herein in this miscellaneo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jul-30-2010
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Mumbai) ORDER (N0.172/2010) S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. The original rectification application has been filed for removal of the trade mark GLUNIL registered under No. 1041324 in class 5 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The applicant is the registered proprietor of the Trade Mark GLUNIL under No. 658849 in class 5 dated 15.03.1995 in respect of pharmaceutical preparations for treatment of diabetes included in class 5. The said trade mark is also registered under No. 717765 in class 5 in respect of goods namely medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations in the name of M/s Medopharm Remedies and Pharmaceuticals which is the applicants sister concern. The above registrations are subsisting and are still in force. 3. The applicants are well established and reputed manufacturer, marketer and exporter of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations falling under class 5 for more than three decades. The applicants s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Aug-10-2010
ORDER(186/10) Z.S. Negi, Chairman 1. The above clarificatory application is filed by M/s. Medical Technologies Ltd. -the applicant- seeking clarification of order No.91/2009 dated 29.5.2009 passed by this Appellate Board whereby the Original Rectification Application, being ORA/46/2006/TM/MUM of the applicant for removal of the Trade Mark ROFOL under No. 583227 in class 05, registered in the name of M/s. Neon Laboratories Private Limited- the respondent No.1-, 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), was dismissed. 2. The applicants case is that on perusal of the aforesaid order dated 29.5.2009, it realised that some of the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments have not been considered nor mentioned nor even decided by the Appellate Board. According to the applicant, it has obtained an injunction on passing off against the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Sep-03-2010
O R D E R (No.188 of 2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is petition for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the appellant M/s.Resprotect Gmbh, a German company, located at Fiedlestrasse 34, 01307 Dresden, Germany. 2. The application for Patent by way of National Phase has been filed in the Patent office at Delhi on 22 September 2005 and numbered as 4282/DELNP/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the subject application). The subject application was duly examined and the first examination report was issued giving the stipulated time to comply with the requirements, by the respondent No.2. The appellant had refiled the documents after complying with the requirements, but the respondent No.2 having found them not in order for grant of Patent finally refused the patent under section 15 of the Act after offering an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. The appellant filed an appeal before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Sep-03-2010
ORDER (No.208 of 2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical member 1. All the above revocation applications have been filed under section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Honble High Court of Kerala under number TRA/7/2008/PT/CH, TRA/11/2008/PT/CH, TRA/13/2008/PT/CH, TRA/14/2008/PT/CH, TRA/15/2008/PT/CH, TRA/16/2008/PT/CH and TRA/19/2008/PT/CH for the revocation of the patent No. 184078 granted to the contesting respondents by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. These applications have been transferred to this Appellate Board under section 117G of the Act and re-number as TRA/7/2008/PT/CH, TRA/11/2008/PT/CH, TRA/13/2008/PT/CH, TRA/14/2008/PT/CH, TRA/15/2008/PT/CH, TRA/16/2008/PT/CH and TRA/19/2008/PT/CH. 2. The applicants in each of their applications for revocation, respectively, have shown their business and trading interest, separately as a manufacturer or as an exporter in the coir industry field, towards the sales of coir mats having non-skid rubber ...
Tag this Judgment!