Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the invention employs a fuel pump to supply the fuel to engine. this clearly shows that the intake system is entirely different than that of described in bal application .it does not disclose monocoque chassis and engine and transmission located at one side and reed valve positioned between crankcase and carburetor housing. in fact, ..... how there can be an inventive step without novelty 26. the expression "does not involve any inventive step" used in section 26(1) (a) of the act and its equivalent word "obvious", have acquired special significance in the terminology of patent law. the obviousness has to be strictly and objectively judged. for this ..... and learned counsel shri m.k. chakrabarti appeared for the respondent. 3. the applicant in this case, lml limited is an indian company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 carrying out their business for several years, inter alia, in the field of motor vehicles including two wheeled motor vehicles such as motorcycles, motorscooters, mopeds .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... been using it continuously, exclusively and extensively from the year 1984. they claim that it is a well known trade mark as has been defined in the trade marks act, 1999. they claim that by continuous, extensive and exclusive use with large scale advertisements and publicity it has become a well known mark. the applicants activities include ..... respondent to remove the word ayuvet which was replied by a letter dated 23/08/1994. thereafter, the applicants chose not to initiate any proceedings. the present act of filing the application is therefore clearly malafide. it is also stated that the applicant's oppositions were dismissed by the registrar on 26/05/2009 and the ..... public domain. 7. however, the applicant can justifiably seek revocation of the mark if the mark is deceptively similar to his and on other grounds as per the act. 8. non-user:- though the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent has not proved user from the date as claimed in the application, but in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... material informations from the register amounting to fraud. (v) the various legal grounds on which the removal of the impugned trade marks under section 57 of the trade marks act alleged are:- (a) false averments of ownership of the mark under section 18(1) before the registrar. (b) the impugned mark is remaining on the register without ..... section 24 dealing with jointly owned trade mark is reproduced below: section 24. jointly owned trade marks:(1) save as provided in sub-section (2), nothing in this act shall authorise the registration of two or more persons, who use a trade mark independently, or propose so as to use it, as joint proprietors thereof. (2) where ..... the registrar the termination of the arrangement, so as to enable him to rectify the register in respect of the registered trade mark under section 57 of the act. 15. the respondent had applied for exclusive right for the trade mark metro previously jointly used by both parties. that is clearly a misappropriation of property not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... claiming right over the mark by way of long and prior usage should have sought protection of its alleged right by invoking section 34 of the act instead of filing the rectification applications. the respondent through its counsel filed written arguments. 21. rectification application may be filed by any person aggrieved. the ..... mr. manipur v. kini, mr. manipur p. kini and mr. krishnanad kini in their individual capacity. the respondent, a company registered under the companies act, 1956, is a different entity altogether- a third party- and the applicant ought to have initiated proceedings against the parties who have allegedly signed and executed the ..... against fraud. the fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. learned counsel vehemently opposed the validity and enforceability of the agreements, referred to in the applicants averment that it has permitted the respondent .....
Tag this Judgment!