Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the registration date is 26-06-1975 as an associated mark with two marks mentioned above in the name of rallis india ltd. ..... the registration in favour of visesh of the mark is contrary to law ..... the registrar has not applied the provisions relating to grounds for registration correctly ..... r1 is the central and sales tax registration which do not refer to the mark rally. ..... it was further held that the two rival marks have to be considered as a whole and that in deciding the question of similarity between the two marks, the courts have to approach it from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and of imperfect recollection ..... they are mostly dealers of rallifan and they testify that they know about the existence of rallifan and that they came to know about rally fan recently and that it will definitely cause confusion. 14 ..... in this case it was held don primafacie infringes dawn, and that though the visual background was not similar, since the goods were same and the test of a man of ordinary intelligence was applied. ..... in the present case the assignment was of the only mark that was alive, the registered proprietor had not renewed the other two marks and had allowed them to lapse ..... these have been made in newspapers circulated in kerala, kolkata, tamilnadu, karnataka, orissa, rajasthan, chandigarh, pondicherry, a.p. ..... the owners of rally fan have also raised a point of law with regards to s.44 of the trade marks act 1999 ( act in short). ..... it was renewed, in 1982 and 1989. on a tm-24 h.m.p. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... i am conscious of the fact that once the well-known status of a trade mark is recognized, irrespective of the specification of the goods, it can be an obstacle in the registration of a similar mark, but at the same time it may be mentioned here that the opponents have failed to substantiate the fact that the word jaguar has attained the well-known statutes in terms of section 11 of the act in these proceedings as stated earlier. ..... so our main task here is to examine whether the registrar fell in error in allowing the registration of the impugned mark and could not foresee the impact of his ruling and whether his findings were in conformity with the language and intended purpose of the act. ..... j) the registrar is also misdirected himself by carving out a superficial distinction between clocks and watches and allowed the impugned mark to be registered subject to amendment of the specification of the goods to read as watches and parts thereof included in class 14 but excluding clocks . ..... the appellant have been already in the global market some 54 years before the impugned mark was seriously used from 1989 onwards by the respondent. ..... d) the exhibit filed clearly indicate that the respondent have been using the impugned mark only since 1989 whereas the appellants have filed substantial evidence in the form of invoices etc. ..... in october, 1989 the said trade mark was assigned to the respondent. d. ..... the first invoice of the respondent is from 1989. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... -5 , which is valid and subsisting; (c) the registration of trade mark rumalar is prohibited under section 12(1) of the act as the trade mark in respect of goods for which registration of trade mark is sought for by the respondent no.1 is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the appellant which is already registered in respect of same goods or description of goods; (d) the use of the mark is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the members of the public and the trade and as such its registration is prohibited under section 11(a) of the act; (e) the adoption of the trade mark by the respondent no.1 is dishonest and he is not and ..... negi, vice-chairman: this appeal under sub-section (2) of section 109 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act) is directed against the order dated 23.11.1989 passed by the deputy registrar of trade marks dismissing the opposition and accepting the application for registration subject to amending the specification of goods. ..... thereafter, the respondent no.3 on 23.11.1989 passed an order dismissing the opposition and allowing the application to proceed to registration subject to amending the specification of goods. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... only; (8)the respondents as well as the advocate mr.r.n.prabhakar was aware of the applicants predecessors adoption of the trademark, haldiram bhujiawala since 1941 and the v-shape logo since 1965 which was not disclosed to the registrar amounting to fraud; (9)that in reply to the examination report that a conflicting mark was on the register, the respondents concealing the fact that the applicants were the proprietors, had stated that they were the only firm using the trademark which is a false statement; (10) that the registration was in contravention of the provisions of the act; (11) that ..... on 17.01.2013, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they had filed an application for amendment of the counter statement and that mp has to be taken up for hearing first. ..... the applicants suit filed before the district court, delhi was transferred to the honble high court in view of the amendments made in the plaint. ..... on 06.02.2012, the respondents filed another miscellaneous petition in mp.no.147 of 2012 seeking permission to amend the counter statement in view of the order passed by this board declining to take on record the so-called licence agreement. ..... it is a matter of record that the application under no.285062 was filed in the year 1972 for the whole of india, but later amended excluding the state of west bengal as per the family arrangement. 17. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... monika gave notice of opposition on 4.5.1992 opposing the registration of the mark on the basis of sections 9,11(a), 11(e) and 12(1) of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act). ..... sarvodaya gave notice of their intention to oppose the registration of the trade mark on the grounds of its violation of the provisions of the act. ..... the registrar shall proceed with the registration of mark vishal in favour of monika manufacturing company, the appellant in ta/99 and the respondent in ta/323/04. ..... in conclusion, he allowed the registration of the application and disallowed the opposition del 9186. 6. ..... monika filed application for registration of trade mark vishal under no.513761 on 21.7.1989 in respect of kitchen utensils included in class 21. ..... the assistant registrar has rightly concluded that vishal being a descriptive term, one can only by long use for the same assume distinctiveness and monika started using the mark in 1982 and the application has been made on 21.7.1989 a period of more than 7 years has elapsed which is enough to endow it with the character of having acquired distinctiveness. ..... in the present case, the user of the mark by monika is from 25.3.1982 which is much earlier to his date of his application, that is, 21.7.1989. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... in fact the certificate that is granted clearly states at the bottom that the registration is for 10 years from the date of application and may then be renewed for a further period of 10 years. ..... it merely states that the mark will expire on a particular date and the registration can be renewed by filing form tm-12 accompanied by the prescribed fee. ..... the division bench took note of the inordinate delay and held that if the delay had led to the registration of mark in favour of someone else, it would be an appropriate ground for denial of right. ..... while s.18 of the 1940 act did not prescribe a time limit for filing an application for restoration of the mark which has been removed for non-payment of renewal fee, s.25(4) of the 1958 act introduced for the first time a time limit of one year from the expiration of the last registration of a mark. ..... he cannot remove the trade mark from the register if an application is made within six months and he shall renew the registration. ..... therefore, when a registered proprietor makes an application within the prescribed time, the registrar shall renew the registration. ..... we cannot add or subtract words to the statute (air 1989 sc 2227 m/s aphali pharmaceuticals ltd., vs. ..... he then referred to air 1989 sc 2227 m/s aphali pharmaceuticals ltd., vs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the proceedings contemplated by sub-section (1) relate to the cancellation of trade mark or varying the registration of trade mark, on the ground that the condition on which the registration was granted, was either violated or there was failure in observing the condition of registration. ..... - (1) on application made in the prescribed manner to the appellate board or to the registrar by any person aggrieved, the tribunal may make such order as it may think fit for cancelling or varying the registration of a trade mark on the ground of any contravention, or failure to observe a condition entered on the register in relation thereto. ..... the appellant at the time of hearing raised several grounds, namely, the fact that the notice issued under section 57(4) of the act was violative of the provision and such notice cannot be issued where a matter had been decided on a contest between the parties and the said section is only limited to registration granted on unopposed applications and by way of an administrative action and which has not been tested in a judicial proceeding before the learned registrar of trade marks. ..... (f) the learned registrar also failed to note that the provisions of section 57(4) should apply only in cases where the registration had gone on record unopposed under an administrative order and not in matters where an opposition had been judicially decided by the registrar. ..... the said application was advertised in the trade marks journal no.952 dated 1.2.1989 at page 1230. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the registration of the trade mark in favour of the second respondent may not amount to an absolute right created under section 28(1) of the act and is subservient to other provisions of the act, viz. ..... the second respondent has applied for the registration of the trade mark jolen in application no.555920 in respect of cosmetic goods included in class 3 of the fourth schedule of the rules framed under the said act, claiming user of the said trade mark since december, 1985. ..... , a company incorporated and having the principal place of business in usa, gave notice of their intention to oppose the registration of the impugned mark on 24.9.1997 in opposition no.del/ t 600 on the ground that the impugned mark is violative of the provisions of the said act. ..... when we are deciding the issue with regard to the permissibility of the registration of the trade mark of the second respondent on the available material, we have to dispose of the matter independent of any observations made by any of the courts in a passing off action. ..... having said so, the appellant has filed a petition form 16 to amend the user. ..... the second respondent, on 16.7.1997, applied for amendment in their application for registration of the mark applied for seeking to substitute the name as m/s. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... enfield india limited, filed notice of their intention to oppose the registration of the trade mark on the ground of its violative of sections, 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12 (1) and 18(1) of the said act. ..... , diesel oil engines would cause confusion and deception in the trade as well as among the public and hence the registration offends section 11(a) of the said act. ..... section 11(a) prohibits the registration of a mark if the use of the same would be likely to deceive or cause confusion. ..... the registration of an identical mark by the first respondent in respect of their goods, viz. ..... deepak engineering syndicate, the first respondent herein, filed an application no.433988 on 18.2.1985 for registration of the trade mark bullet in respect of diesel oil engines and parts thereof included in class 7 of the fourth schedule of the rules framed under the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958, claiming the user since 1979. ..... both the parties filed their evidence and the matter was heard by the assistant registrar of trade marks on 24.11.1994 and ultimately under the impugned order, the assistant registrar disallowed the opposition of the appellant and accepted the application of the first respondent for registration. ..... the said application was advertised before acceptance in the trade marks journal no.971 dated, 16.11.1989 at page 1036. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... grant of patent, but none of these applicants opposed the grant and the patent was finally granted to the contesting respondent, it only shows that the applicants have no case and the patent duly granted as per the respective sections of the patent law and it is the prerogative of the patentee to enjoy the monopoly rights under the patent law to reap the benefits of the years of research in the field of coir products and finally submitted the revocation application be dismissed and uphold the grant of patent with award of cost in his ..... . the deponent on behalf of the contesting respondents denied all the averments made by the applicants and also submitted that the coir board which is a statutory body under the coir industries act introduced a scheme in the year 1996 for the grant of exclusive registration rates for the new and novel coir products ..... and also enclosed the true copy of the extract from the 1989 edition marking the exhibit as r4(d). ..... the 1989 edition of the constructional details of coir and coir products provides the specifications for non-woven matting mats with rubber / latex backing. ..... first, such standard specifications for the new products was published in 1972 which was followed by the second, third and fourth editions in 1978, 1982 and 1989 respectively. .....
Tag this Judgment!