Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... appellant in his appeal filed on 10.3.1995 submitted that having recognised that the mark does not meet the requirements of section 12(1) of the act, the deputy registrar in allowing the registration under section 12(3) of the act has done so totally in violation of the provisions of the law. ..... since the registration of the trade mark of the appellant is from 1949 and the user as recognised by the deputy registrar is from 1972, there is no question of availing the benefit of section 33 of the act. ..... in effect, the deputy registrar has allowed the registration to the impugned mark under section 12(3) read with sections 33 and 54(2) of the act. 5. ..... there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant became subsequent proprietor thereof the registration of the mark prestige' taken by m/s prestige group uk england on 14.12.1949, through a deed of assignment dated 4.10.1985. ..... the appellant opposed registration of the mark under sections 9, 11 (a), 11(e), 12(1), 12(3) and 18(1) of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act). ..... prestige housewares india limited on 29.12.1989 on the grounds that it is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'prestige' under no. ..... 78, old madras road, dooravaninagar, bangalore-560 016 on 16.10.1989 as a subsequent proprietor as from 4.10.85 by virtue of assignment deed dated 4.10.85. ..... 970 dated 1.11.1989 at page 981. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the applicant is aggrieved by the registration of the trade mark quikclot under no.1326454 in class 5 in respect of medicinal preparation registered in the name of one mukesh gupta. ..... the registration of the impugned mark has been obtained fraudulently and contrary to all principles of business ethics and honest trade practices and void ab initio. ..... regarding objection under section 9 on absolute ground we have serious reservation whether the impugned trade marks qualifies for registration and can serve as a source of origin of the goods having the capability to distinguish the good of one entity from others. ..... it amounts to criminal misconduct as it disguises the ownership of the mark and when registration of the mark is secured it creates perception of legitimacy. ..... examined from any angle the impugned registration has been secured fraudulently to trade on the reputation of the applicants mark and is barred by statute ..... up to the stage of registration it is a passive surreptitious acquisition but after registration it invites criminal liability ..... image in india many applications have been made since 2006 for its registration in conjunction with sub-mark by the applicant. ..... section 146 of the trade marks act, 1999 (in short act) permits the proprietor to oppose or seek cancellation or rectification of the mark from the register in such contingency. ..... on site gas systems secured a patent in 1989 for invention of a novel method of treating wounds using zeolite, a naturally occurring mineral. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the registration is against the provisions of section 18 (1) of the act. 18. ..... person aggrieved is given by lord herschell in powells tm case (1894 (8) ac at page 10) wherever it can be shown, as here, that the applicant is in the same trade as the person who has registered the trade mark and wherever the trade mark, if remaining on the register, would or might limit the legal rights of the applicant so that by reason of the existence of the entry on the register he would not lawfully do that which, but for the existence of the mark upon the register, he could lawfully do, it appears to me, he has a locus standi to be heard as a person aggrieved. 14. ..... in reply the applicant had sent a letter dated 29.09.2007 in which the applicant had requested for the particulars of the registration and wished to advice his clients for settlement. ..... the registration granted is made without sufficient cause and is wrongly remaining on the register. 4. ..... the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that they are prior users of the trade mark vetliv since 01.04.1989. ..... the applicant is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing and selling of veterinary preparations (feed supplements for animals) since the year 0.1.04.1989 under the trade mark vetliv. ..... the applicants user since 01.04.1989 is denied. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... when the marks are almost similar, the probability and the risk of confusion and deception is more and as such, we are of the view that the registration of the impugned mark is contrary to section 11(a) as well as section 11(e) of the said act. ..... if, considering all these circumstances, you come to the conclusion that there will be a confusion - that is to say, not necessarily that one man will be injured and the other will gain illicit benefit, but that there will be a confusion in the mind of the public which will lead to confusion in the goods - then you may refuse the registration, or rather you must refuse the registration in that case. ..... it was invented by them as early as 1950 and their mark has attained reputation and goodwill and as such, the registration of the impugned mark is contrary to the provisions of sections 9(1), 11(a) 11(e), 12(1) and 18(1) of the said act. ..... the invoices at pages 99,101 and 103 of the type set filed alongwith the appeal are the invoices of the year 1977, pages 50, 51, 52, 54 and 97 are the invoices of the year 1978, pages 92 and 93 are the invoices of the year 1981, page 95 is the invoice of the year 1989, and all these invoices are signed by the issuing authority. ..... , air 1989 delhi 44, where the learned judge has held that the mark 'calmpose' is phonetically, visually and deceptively similar to 'calmprose' and is likely to cause confusion, which is almost identical to the facts of the present case. 11. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is honest and concurrent user of the impugned mark and as such, they are entitled for the registration under section 12(3) of the act ..... kislin cosmetics, filed their notice of opposition opposing the registration of the impugned trade mark stating that they are the bona fide proprietors in india and elsewhere inter-alia of the trade mark 'doctor' which has been in actual use for the last 20 years and the said mark was adopted in the year 1971 and thereafter got registered under trade ..... since the second respondent has already obtained the registration of the same mark in respect of cosmetics, the registration of the impugned mark in respect of the same class of goods or the same description of goods would definitely cause confusion and deception in the trade ..... the learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the fresh application for registration of the same trade mark is only to expand the range of business by way of associated mark and it cannot be said that the appellant is seeking the registration of the impugned mark ..... further stated that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to that of their mark and as such, the registration of the impugned mark would cause confusion and deception in the trade and in the public using the cosmetics and toilet ..... the present application filed by the appellant pursuant to a request in form 24 dated 10.2.1989 and the trade mark 'doctor' brand was assigned to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... though the first respondent got assignment of the said impugned trade mark in their favour as early as 30.5.86 they also did not use the said trade mark for manufacture of the centrifugal pumps till the filing of the petition, and as such the said impugned trade mark is liable to be removed from the register of trade marks or in alternate the registration be rectified with the expression 'circulation or centrifugal pumps' are deleted or expunged from the specification of goods in respect of which the impugned trade mark is registered. 12. ..... of section 47, a registered trade mark may he taken off the register in respect of any of the goods in respect of which it is registered on application made in the prescribe manner to a high court or to the registrar by any person aggrieved on the ground either- (a) that the trade mark was registered without any bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods by him or, in a case to which the provisions of section 45 apply, by the company concerned, and that there has, in fact been no bona ..... (vi) the entry relating to the impugned trade mark was wrongly made on the register on the date of registration there of, the said persons were not the proprietors of the impugned trade mark within the meaning of section 18(1) of the act. ..... 9 of 1989 for rectification of the impugned trade mark no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... registration escaped the notice of the applicant and hence the present rectification application for removal of impugned registration/mark from the register on the grounds, inter alia, that the impugned trade mark is not registrable as the same is devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods of the respondent from the goods of other traders or it does not comply with the requirements of section 9 of the act; that the registration of the impugned mark in the name of the respondent is contrary to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (10) of section 11 and section 12 of the act; that the user claimed by the ..... learned counsel in his letter dated 3.5.2009 has stated that originals of the documents, namely, (i) letter dated 25.6.2004 being filed as annexure-a, (ii) certificate of registration of trade mark and other documents filed as annexure a/1(1) to a/1(v), certificate registration of copyright and amendment filed as annexure a/2 (1) to a/2 (iv), certificate of trade marks filed as annexure a/3 (1) to a/3 (iv), advertisement filed as annexure a/4(1) to a/4(xii) and invoices filed as annexure a/5(1) to a/5(80) and other invoices were produced after generating the same from the computer, were not produced for inspection. ..... new punjab soap factory 1989 (2) arbitration law reporter 242. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the trade and public; that the impugned registration is not entitled to protection under law as the same resulted in passing off and loss to the applicant and has also arisen the assumption of trade connection between the applicant and respondent; that the entry of impugned mark in the register is wrong and the registration of such mark being without sufficient cause and its continuance on the register is against the purity of the register and that the impugned registration being contrary to sections 9, 11 and 18 of the act is also against the spirit and purpose of the act ..... whereas the fact is that the agreements were discussed in detail, mutually agreed upon and then executed by the respective parties, articles of association of the respondent were amended and significantly it was only owing to the agreement between the parties that the respondent was using the trade mark, hence such a plea is barred/estopped. 16. ..... , air 1989 noc 120 (delhi) support the view which we have taken:- the injury which is complained of in the present case is to the improper use of the trade mark belonging to the plaintiff. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the grounds of the rectification application are: - (a) the entry of the impugned registration is made without sufficient cause by reason of an error within the meaning of section 57 of the act; (b) the registration was not applied for in good faith and was obtained by suppression of material facts and fraud within the meaning of section 33 of the act; (c) the impugned registration was obtained without any bonafide intention to be used in respect of any or all of the goods for which it was registered; (d) upto a date three months before the date of the application, a continuous period of five years from the date ..... on which the mark ..... the learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the certificate of registration though was granted on 29.09.1989 the respondent had not used the same from 1989. ..... 119/09 for amendment of the applicants name from the jay engineering works limited to usha international limited. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... in view of the above, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the original registration was obtained by fraud, the trade mark was registered in contravention of provisions of section 11 of the act and offends the provisions of that section on the date of commencement of the proceedings or that the trade mark was not at the commencement of the proceedings distinctive of the goods of the proprietor. ..... panna lal chandu lal, 1997 ptc 347 (del) relate to a vital factor that in matter of granting registration or deciding any passing off dispute, the prior use of the trade mark is the vital factor and the registration of the mark or filing of application prior in time is not significant. 12. ..... respondent is not the proprietor of the trade mark and the registration of the trade mark is in violation of provisions of sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1) and 18(1) of the act. 7. ..... 20 and 21 of 1989 filed in the high court of delhi under sections 46 and 56 read with section 107 of the trade and merchandise marks act, (hereinafter referred to as the act) have been transferred to this board in terms of section 100 of the trade marks act, 1999 and numbered as tea nos. ..... still he cannot argue something which is contrary to the pleadings without amending the pleadings. .....
Tag this Judgment!