Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition tinder Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Hetero Drugs Ltd., India, on August 22, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland November 14, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirmed by Giorgio P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, New Delhi on behalf of M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Mainley of Switzerland on July 27, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of My 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Cancer Patients Aid Association., India, on September 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland October 31, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Gopakumar Nair Associates, Mumbai on behalf of M/s. CIPLA Ltd., Mumbai on July 5, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland on August 5, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Natco Pharma Ltd., India, on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland on July 25, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirmed by Giorgio Pietro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC776Reg
1. On 4.7.1991 M/s. Cadila Laboratories Ltd., Ghodasar, Maninagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to applicants) applied for registration of trade mark NEOPLATIN under application No. 553896 in class 5 in respect of Pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. After the examination this application was advertised in the trade marks journal No. 1171 dtd. 16.3.1998 at page 2396.2. On 3.6.1998 M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to opponents) opposed the registration of trade mark advertised as aforesaid on the following grounds:- (1) That the opponents are the manufacturers and dealers in pharmaceutical drugs, dietitic specialities, tonics, injections, syrups, ointments etc. and are the owners and actual users of the registered trade mark NEOPEPTINE under No. 265564 in class 5. The said registrations valid and subsisting. (2) That the applicants trade mark is phonetically, visually and structurally similar t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC510Reg
1. This will dispose of an Interlocutory Petition dtd. 21.6.2004 filed by the petitioner/opponent alongwith evidence in support of opposition inter alia praying for taking the said evidence on record under Rule 50(1) of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. On filing of the counter-statement by the applicant, a copy of the same was served on the opponent vide official letter dated 13.2.2003 inviting their attention to the erstwhile Rule 53(1) to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed period of two months from the date of service on them, but, the opponent neither filed evidence, nor relied on the facts stated in the Notice of Opposition as required under the erstwhile Rule 53(1). After more than 6 and half months from the date of receipt of the counter-statement by them, the opponent abruptly, filed a request on Form TM-56 on 5.9.2003 for extension of time for an accumulated period of six months under the erstwhile rules, which was allowed and the extension of time granted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2002)(24)PTC654Reg
1. The trade mark TOSIBA was sought to be registered by Shri Narinder Kumar Suri and Shri Dharendra Paul Suri trading as M/s. Tosiba Appliances Company, Anand Parbat, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) in respect of electrical apparatus and instruments, electrical iron (flat) and electrical appliances included in class 9 vide application No. 50986 dated 9th May, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the class 9 application) and in respect of machines, machines tools, sewing machines and parts thereof except needles foot pressures and heads motor vests and pedal drive, shuttles, tambours for sewing machines included in class 7 vide application No. 510312 dated 12th May, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the class 7 application). Both the above noted applications were ordered to be advertised before acceptance and in due course of time were advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 1115 dated 16th November, 1995 at page 2335 and 2323 respectively. The applicants claimed the use...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC677Reg
1. A Trade Mark consisting of word 'LUDEM' was applied for registration in class 5 in respect of Medicinals & Pharmaceuticals Preparations by the above named applicants under Application No. 456381 dated 3.7.1986 as "proposed to be used" under the provisions of Trade & Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Eventually, the Mark was advertised before acceptance in Trade Mark Journal No. 967 dated 16.9.1998 at page 751.2. The above named opponents expressed their intention to object to the registration of the impugned application by filing the subject opposition dated 11.12.1989 inter alia stating the grounds of opposition was follows :- 1. That the opponents carry on a well established business as manufacturers, dealers, exporters in Medicinal & Pharmaceutical Products for last several years under the Trade Mark 'LUDEM' with their other trade marks. 2. That the opponents adopted the trade mark 'LUDEM' on or about February, 1986 and they had been co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC134Reg
1. A trade mark consisting of an expression 'BACTOPRIM D.S.' was applied for registration by the above named applicants in respect of "Medicinal and Pharmaceutical preparations" in Class 5 under application No. 434938 dated 7.3.1985 claiming the user therein since 13.8.1984 under the provisions of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as the Act). Eventually, the mark was advertised as accepted in Trade Mark Journal No. 1001 dated 16.2.1991 at page 1336.2. The above named opponents notified their intention to oppose the registration of the impugned trade mark by filing notice of opposition dated 10.6.1991 alongwith a request on Form TM-44 for condoning the delay in filing the notice of opposition inter alia stating the grounds of opposition as follows :- (1) That the opponents carry on an old established and reputed business in manufacturing and selling a variety of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations all over the world. (2) That the opponents are the...
Tag this Judgment!