Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT SITTING AT AHMEDAHAD) Honble Dr.Raghbir Singh, Vice-Chairman Appeal No.1/1999 filed in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has been transferred to this Board in terms of Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and numbered as TA/275/2004/TM/AMD. 2. The first respondent filed an application for registration of a trade mark consisting of words UJALA KING with a device of Sun in Class 3 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of soaps under application No.401336. The user claimed under that application is since December, 1975. In due course, the mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No.1078 (Supplement) dated 8.5.1994 at page 6, under proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. The appellant gave a notice on 27.7.1994 to oppose the registration of the mark on the ground that it is the proprietor of a well known trade mark SUNLIGHT and also of the trade mark SUN. The said marks are registered in various forms. The impugne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Sitting at New Delhi) Honble Dr.Raghbir Singh, Vice-Chairman: CM(M) 426/96 filed in the High Court of Delhi has been transferred to this Board in terms of section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and numbered as TA/128/2003. 2. S/Shri Rajiv Gupta, Anil Gupta and Smt. Shashi Gupta trading as M/s JVC Auto Centre applied for registration of trade mark words JVC per se under application No.447435 B in respect of Battery Chargers, electric invertors, electric voltage stabilizer and safety helmets for motor cyclist included in class-9 on 27.12.1985. The appellants claimed the user of the mark since 1.12.1982. The trade mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No.1000 dated 1.2.1991 at page 1278. 3. M/s Victor Company of Japan gave notice of their intention to oppose the registration of the trade mark on 31.5.1991 on the grounds of section 11(a), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After filing of pleadings and evid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) Hon'ble Ms.S.Usha, Technical Member: Appeal challenging the order dated 8.6.2004 of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad in opposition No. AMD 58501 against application No.641893 in class 29 of the trade mark EKKA under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby treating the opposition as abandoned under rule 50(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 2. The second respondent herein filed an application for registration of the trade mark EKKA under No.641893 in class 29 in respect of edible oil on 03.10.1994 claiming user since 1986. The said application was advertised in the Trade marks Journal No.1236 at page 3671 dated 1.12.2000. The appellant herein filed notice of opposition in Form TM-5 opposing the said registration on various grounds. The second respondent filed their counter statement on 19.10.2001. on 5.12.2001 the appellants were served with the copy of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) Honble Shri Syed Obaidur Rahaman, Technical Member: 1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad dated 31st July, 2006. The appeal was taken up for hearing in the Circuit Bench Sitting at Ahmedabad on 21st February, 2008. 2. The appellant is one of the most reputed and the largest manufacturers of automobiles and auto parts in the world. Its business operations are spread in as many as 186 countries including 22 countries in Asia. The appellant is engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing automobiles and auto parts. It adopted the mark NISSAN as a prominent part of its corporate identity and as its main trade mark on or about 1933. The mark NISSAN is a part of the corporate identity and trading style of all its subsidiaries and affiliate companies throughout the world. 3. The appellant employs approximately 183,607 employees worldwide and recorded annual sales for the financial year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) HON'BLE SHRI Z.S.NEGI, VICE- 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 27.9.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad in opposition proceedings No.AMD-63292. 2. It is stated that the appellant is an internationally reputed and well established company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of wide variety of goods, namely, adhesives, adhesive materials, construction chemicals, synthetic resins, synthetic polymers, pigments, surfactants, auxiliary chemicals, artists materials, artists colours, drawing instruments, paints, water based stainers/universal stainers since several years. The goods of the appellant are sold in India and exported to various countries worldwide. The appellant in fact is one of the largest manufacturers of adhesives in India. 3. It is averred that owing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench Ahmedabad) HON'BLE SHRI Z.S.NEGI, VICE- CHAIRMAN: These appeals under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against the three orders all dated 9.5.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad, whereby he treated the opposition Nos. AMD-190624, AMD-190625 and AMD-190626 as time barred and disposed them of as rejected and, accepted for registration the application Nos. 630740,630742 and 630743B. 2. The appellant is stated to be a company, engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing consumer and industrial products and services for the last few decades which had adopted various trade marks such as NIRMA, SUPER NIRMA and NILAM for different goods covered under different classes and obtained registration of about 85 trade marks which are renewed, valid and subsisting till today. The appellant has also made about 179 applications for registration of trade marks NIRMA, SUPER NIRMA and NILAM unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad) HON'BLE SHRI Z.S.NEGI, VICE- 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 5.5.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad whereby she dismissed the review petitions. 2. It is averred that the appellant is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling wide range of tea since 1973. The appellant is a very reputed and well-known manufacturer and its goods have acquired tremendous reputation amongst public due to its good quality and wide networking in India. The appellant is the registered proprietor of trade mark JIVRAJ in vernacular under No. 360701 in class 30 which is valid and subsisting. The appellant is also having copyright registration in respect of artistic works under Nos. A-527209/95, A-543489/98 and A-565539/99. 3. The respondent No.1 had sought registration of trade mark JIVRAJ i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
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 20.8.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai whereby he has disallowed the opposition No. MAS-165136 and allowed the application No. 1000752 to proceed to registration. The appellant has filed along with the appeal an application being M.P. No. 142/2007 for stay of operation of the impugned order dated 20.8.2007. 2. The application for stay came up for hearing before us on 7.4.2008 when Shri M.K. Miglani, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri S. Balachandran, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the impugned order is ex facie not sustainable in law as there is a very strong probability that the said order would be set aside or quashed by this Appellate Board. He submitted that the respondent No.2 has passed the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Honble S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member: This is an appeal under section 117A (2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Nokia Corporation being the appellant challenging the order of the Controller of Patents dated 26.09.2007 passed in the matter of Patents Application No.1857/CHENP/2003. The appellant has alongwith the appeal filed a miscellaneous petition for interim stay of the impugned order. 2. The appellant has filed an international PCT application in EPO on 28.05.2001 which has been numbered as PCT/EP01/06069. Based on this international PCT application, the appellant has entered into the National Phase of selected designated countries including India within the period prescribed under PCT. Accordingly the national phase application filed on 27.11.2003 by the appellant has been accorded Patent Application No.1859/CHENP/2003. Due to non-compliance of office requirements, the respondent passed an order refusing the grant of patent. Hence the above a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench at Kolkata) Honble Shri Z. S. Negi, Chairman: The appellant has filed an appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks disallowing the opposition No. KOL- 182914 and allowing the application No.1103477 in class 3. 2. The appellant has along with the appeal filed an application seeking for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the time limit specified therefor under sub-section (1) of section 91 of the Act. It is averred that the appellant being a foreigner, its attorneys in India had to send the impugned order to the appellants Denmark based attorneys for forwarding the same to the appellant. The appellant after perusal of the impugned order had to seek legal opinion from its Indian attorneys through its Danish attorneys. This triangular exchange of legal opinion and transmission of instructions and documents consumed considerabl...
Tag this Judgment!