Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... thus, the registration, of the fir as well as further proceedings is nothing but misuse of the process of the court. ..... the registration of the respondents trade mark surmi (word per se) is illegal as it is the name of the goods itself. ..... but subsequently, they claimed the registration for the word surmi per se under no.510489 in class 5. ..... the applicant filed an application on 1st june, 1979 for the registration of the trade mark kanwal nayan in respect of ayurvedic medicinal preparations for the treatment of eye disease and surma being eye salve under no 340006 in class 5 which has since been registered. ..... thus, the registration of the impugned mark was obtained by fraud as it is a simple generic name of the product. ..... the word surmi is highly descriptive for goods included in the impugned registration and the respondent cannot be considered the proprietor of the impugned mark under section 18(1) of the act. ..... in any event, the act of the trade marks registry in granting registration for the word surmi (word per se) is grossly illegal and that mark has to go so that all other can live in peace. ..... the registrar of trade mark should accordingly amend the register and impose a disclaimer condition on the word surmi in respect of registered trade mark no.336744 for the trade mark surmi tone. ..... they have been using the respective marks since 28th may, 1978 and 16th may, 1989. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the form tm-16 was only to rely on the earlier registration and based on that the respondents mark was barred for registration as per the provisions of section 12(1) of the act. 9. ..... the appellant herein had filed their notice of opposition objecting to the registration of the trade mark rahat on various grounds on 03.06.1991. ..... the points in the said paragraphs were to say that they had acquired the right from their predecessors as early as 08.12.1976 and also that their trade mark rahat rooh was registered and as such the impugned mark was barred for registration under section 12 (1) of the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the act). 4. ..... kalgonda as follows:- all amendments ought to be allowed which would satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but costs. ..... the counsel also submitted that the registrar had dealt the assignment agreement dated 31.03.1989 which was not before him. ..... the counsel further submitted that the assignment agreement was entered into as early as 1989 whereas the application on form tm-24 was filed in the year 1992 after a long delay. 13. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the registration would definitely cause confusion and description among the trader and public and would be in continuation of the provisions of section 11 of the act. 4. ..... the appellants opposed the registration on the ground that they are in the business of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations for several years ..... usha vice chairman the original appeal arises out of the order dated 30.3.2007 dismissing the opposition no.kol-217834 and allowing the application no.1326200 in class 5 to proceed to registration after amending the goods, passed by the deputy registrar of trade marks. 2. ..... the respondents herein filed an application for registration of the label mark consisting of the word sense on 16.12.2004 under no1326200 in class 5 ..... the respondents to file necessary application to restrict their use only for the state of orissa and after notification in the trade marks journal, the trade mark be registered and the opposition is therefore dismissed. 8 ..... when the rival marks are held not to be deceptively similar and in view of the fact that the respondents are using the trade mark after obtaining drug license in the state of orissa, they can claim proprietary right under section 18 (1) of the act. ..... the respondents were directed by the registrar to file tm-16 form for restricting the sale to the state of orissa. ..... the mark sense applied for registration is used in tablets which are consumed by pregnant women ..... the respondents have in fact restricted their sales only to the state of orissa. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... turning to the facts of represent case, the sequence of events shows that the registration was initially granted to petitioners 1 to 5 trading as mp . ..... the amendment sought for was to amend the first para of form-1 bringing in the petitioners mentioned in the statement of case as originally filed as part of the amended form-1 and the first para of the statement of case was also amended to the effect that the petitioners no. ..... we are grateful to the counsel for the respondent for pointing out how the original records should show the amended pleadings and we direct the registry of the ipab to indicate the amendment in red ink so that the difference between the original form 1 and statement of case and amended form 1 and statement of case is apparent by just a bare look. 15. ..... in fact, all provisions of the cpc do not bind us and we are only required to observe the principles of natural justice and the act specifies that we have the power of civil courts in respect of the matters mentioned in section 92(2). 18. ..... 1 refers to violation of the provisions of sections 9(2) (a) and 11(1) of the trade marks act, 1999; ground (b) refers to violation of section 11 (2); ground (c) refers to violation of section 11 (3) and ground (d) to section 11 (10). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... as wrong averments; the first respondents mark was not distinctive of the registered proprietor at the time of the application and registration; the registration of the impugned mark is in contravention of sections 9, 11 and 18(1) of the said act; the first respondent has illegally and wrongly obtained the impugned registration by suppressing the various proceedings pending before various ..... on 20.6.2003 filed an application in the suit filed by the applicant, for amendment claiming to be the registered proprietor of the disputed trade mark nabisco and on coming to know of the said registration, the applicant filed this application for rectification of the said trade mark on the following grounds: the impugned mark was wrongly registered and wrongly remains on the register; the first respondent is not the registered proprietor of the impugned mark; the first respondent got the impugned mark registered by making false statements, false affidavit and false documents as well ..... the applicant company was found in the year 1989 and for about 50 years or more, its biscuits and the relative packaging had depicted on them the letters nbc being an abbreviation of the original name of the applicant. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... at the stage of opposition, any person can oppose the registration. ..... the respondents in the opposition proceeding against them had stated that they would not be filing any separate evidence and would be relying on the evidence filed by the opponents in the opposition proceedings to the appellants registration which is the subject matter of oa/13/2011, now that has been filed by p.nagasamy claiming to be the partner of thalappakatti naidu ..... are proceedings before the honble madras high court and at paragraph 43 of the order of the division bench it is stated that if the essential feature of the trade mark of plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the defendant cannot contend that plaintiff is not entitled to protection of the entire word mark and that there is no infringement of the entire mark. ..... in 1998, we find that the respondent had started a branch in coimbatore and there is a certificate of registration issued by the commercial tax officer in favour of thalappakatti naidu ananda vilas biriyani ..... 1974 1 (scc)305 where it was held that under the motor vehicles act in an application for such carriage permit to a route, if the applicant dies pending application, the areas and legal representatives cannot be substituted, if the deceased applicant did not possess any vehicle of his own. ..... it has been filed by a different party other than the proposed amendment in tm(16) namely thalappakatti naidu ananda vilas biriyani hotel (thalappakatti naidu avbh ..... is for the year 1989-90. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... loop from said output side to said dc voltage intermediate circuit, said feedback loop including a feedback choke inductively coupled to said output choke; wherein an alternating current (three-phase current) is outputted with the inverter by way of m lines, wherein the m lines are coupled together by a resonant circuit; and wherein substantially symmetrical harmonics occurring on said output side are very substantially compensated by feeding said symmetrical harmonics back to said dc intermediate circuit through ..... regarding the amendment, he submitted that the amendment was within the provisions of s 59 and it was narrower in scope than the original claims and the amendment was to bring out clarity and the original independent claims, 2 and14 and dependent claims 8, 16 have been merged to frame the amended claim-1. ..... considering the evidence of both the experts and the reasons given by them, the pleadings, the fig 2 in the invention and figs 2a and 2b in the 390 patent and the other materials before us, we find that the inverter having an output side with an out put choke is in 390, the output choke inductively coupled to an extra choke is also in the prior art, both have the dc link too, the output is coupled to the resonant circuits also. ..... therefore the proposed amendments in the claims are not allowable u/s.59 and 10(4) of the patents act, 1970 . 47. ..... evans medical (1989 fsr 561) the principles on which discretion for allowing amendments are set out. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... and another provides that the crucial stage for the purpose of section 32 of the act would be the date of commencement of the proceeding in which the question as to the conclusive character of the registration arises. ..... (b) the trade mark application no.387177 for the label taj mahal and device applied for on 3.3.1982 claiming user from 1.7.1978 registration granted on 15.12.1989 (nbrm). ..... the learned counsel submitted that there is no acceptable explanation on the part of krbl why it had not sought registration earlier and only after 1989. ..... krbl has filed its application for registration in 1989 two years after this document. ..... on 15.12.1989 a registration certificate was granted for the nbrms application under no.387177. ..... on 22.2.1989, krbl applied for registration of the trade mark taj mahal in class 30 for export only of rice under no.506080 claiming user from 1.1.1978. ..... various legal action initiated by nbrm against other persons using the word taj in connection with their product, shows that the mark had become distinctive of the goods of the registered proprietor at the commencement of the proceedings which is in the year 1989. ..... the learned counsel referred to the order passed in criminal contempt petition no.16/1989 by the honble punjab and haryana high court where it was said that an averment made that the respondent was proprietor of the trade mark since 1978 is falsified from the respondents own plaint in the civil suit pending in delhi high court. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... contention that the word polo is the name of a sport ..... reputation of the trade mark polo; (e) the registrar has wrongly held the 1st respondent as the honest adopter and proprietor without considering the appellants registration and evidence; (f) the registrar erred in rejecting the appellants objection under section 18(1) of the act as baseless; (g) the registrar failed to appreciate the objections under section 9 which was based on the fact that the application for registration was a proposed to be used mark; (h) the registrar failed to appreciate that the burden of proving is always upon the applicant and not on the opponent; (i) the registrar erred in accepting the respondents ..... the invoices of the year 1981 upto 1989 do not bear any trade mark. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... the civil suit filed by the respondent, the applicants herein have filed application for rectification on the ground that - (a) the respondent is not the proprietor of the trade mark; (b) the respondent obtained the impugned trade mark registration fraudulently and by making material misstatements as to its user and proprietorship; (c) the respondent is wrong claimant of proprietary rights in the impugned trade mark; (d) the respondent has played fraud before the registrar of trade marks; (e) the respondent has not disclosed the fact that the applicants are the prior user of the trade mark; (f) the ..... impugned mark would cause confusion and deception among the public; (g) the impugned mark has not acquired distinctiveness; (h) the impugned mark has been on the register without sufficient cause and is wrongly remaining on the register; (i) the applicants are the proprietors of the trade mark and therefore the applicants are the persons whose interests would be substantially damaged if the impugned trade mark is allowed to continue on the register; and (j) the impugned trade mark is in contravention of the provisions of the act ..... on 22.9.2003, they have filed an application for amendment on form tm-16 for change in the date of user from proposed to be used to 3.11.1998. .....
Tag this Judgment!