Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) ORDER (No.75 of 2014) Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. This instant review petition is filed against the order dated 25/05/2011 passed by this Board dismissing the petition for condonation of delay. 2. The Review Petitioner submitted that during the hearing, this Honble Board observed that the delay is too short which is reasonable and therefore orally condoned the delay. But on receipt of the order found that the application was surprisingly dismissed. 3. The respondent had filed their counter affidavit to this Review Petition. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board had orally observed that the delay is reasonable and therefore the delay was condoned. Thereafter the petitioner had informed his clients about the outcome of the petition by e-mail. Therefore, there is an error in the impugned order which ought to be reviewed. 5. We also heard the counsel for the respondent. 6. It is worth to quote the final part of the order dated 25/05/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.44 of 2014) Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman The two rectification applications are for removal of the trademarks œUdhayam? and œGRBs Udhayam? registered under Nos.785124 and 1077180 in class 29 respectively under the provisions of section 57 of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are one and the same and the issues, therefore the matters were heard together and a common order is being passed. 3. The applicant is the joint proprietor of the trademark / label œUdhaiyam? and is carrying on business through Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. The said company is engaged in the business of marketing food and allied products under the said trademark œUdhaiyam?. The company is inter-alia engaged in the manufacture and / or marketing activity of Dhall under the trademark / label œUdhaiyam?. 4. The applicant through its group entities are the traders of all types of food and allied products such as Dhall, Atta, Rawa, Maida, Salt, Rice, Spices, Fried Gram Appalam, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT SITTING AT MUMBAI) ORDER (No.43 of 2014) K.N. Basha, Chairman The petitioner who is the respondent No.3 in the appeal preferred this Miscellaneous Petition raising a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the appellant/respondent No.3 herein. 2. It is seen that at the time of preferring the appeal this Board granted an order of stay in Miscellaneous Petitioner No.70/2010 seeking for the relief of stay and in Miscellaneous Petition No.71/2010 seeking for the relief of urgent hearing of the matter on 07.12.2011. This Board observed in that order that the impugned order was stayed by the order dated 07.12.2011 in the absence of the respondent who in spite of knowing that the date of hearing has chosen not to be present before the Board. Thereafter, the respondent No.3/petitioner herein preferred a Miscellaneous Petition No.46/2012 for vacating the stay order dated 07.12.2011 and the said petition is pending as on date. Meanwhile, the Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order ( No. 29 Of 2014) 1. Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman: The instant original rectification application is for removal of the trade mark Tiger Brand label registered under No. 1330146 in class 34 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are “ The applicant is a partnership firm. The applicants predecessors in title and the present applicants are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of inter alia chewing tobacco etc. In the year 1955, M/s. Jagan Nath and Sons, the predecessor in title of the applicant adopted the trade mark Tiger Brand (word per se and the label) in respect of chewing tobacco of their manufacture and sale. The trade marks Tiger Brand / Sher Chhap (label) and Tiger Brand represented in a circular device along with a picture of Tiger were registered in the name of M/s. Jagan Nath and Sons under Nos. 167909 and 256652 respectively. The trade marks were used continuously till 1973. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. The instant appeal is preferred against the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents dated 12/06/2009 in respect of Patent No.197822 (178/MUM/2004) granted on 21/04/2006 under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act, 1970 pursuant to a post-grant opposition dated 21/04/2007. 2. The facts of the case are “ The 1st respondent filed a Patent application No. 178/MUM/2004 on 16/02/2004. The patent was granted on 21/04/2006 as Patent No. IN 197822. The appellant herein filed a post grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Act. The appellant also filed expert affidavit of Dr. Nagarsenkar. The 1st respondent filed their reply statement to the statement of opposition. The 1st respondent had not filed their evidence though sought time to file evidence. 3. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the opposition filed by the appellants. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the above appeal on various grounds. (1) that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No. 37 Of 2014) K.N. Basha, Chairman: This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 24/02/2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai allowing the opposition filed by the respondent herein in Opposition No. MAS-600028 in Application No. 690805 in class 05 refusing the registration. 2. Mr. Arun C. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though the appellant has raised several grounds, they are confining only on the ground of non consideration of the claim and contention of the appellant on the ground of honest and bonafide concurrent user. The learned counsel would submit that the Deputy Registrar has not considered the explanation given by the appellant for honest and concurrent use and in view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remand back for fresh consideration. 3. Earlier in this case, though the 1st respondent was already served notice, neither the party nor any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT SITTING AT MUMBAI) ORDER (No.42 of 2014) K.N. Basha, Chairman In all these matters, the patents under challenge are Patent No.188787 in ORA/7and10/2011/PT/MUM, 189027 in ORA/8 and 11/2011/PT/MUM. The above said patents were in the name of respondent No.1. These two patents were revoked as per the order dated 12.06.2012 TRA/5and6/2008/PT/MUM and as per order dated 14.03.2013 in ORA/19 and 21/2010/PT/MUM and ORA/9 and 14/2011/PT/MUM. In view of the same, these revocation applications must also be ordered. 2. Mrs. Tusha Malhotra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.K. Muthukumar, the learned counsel for the respondent appeared before us today in all these matters. It is brought to our notice that the very same two patents subject matter of these three applications have already been revoked as per order dated 12.06.2012 in TRA/5and6/2008/PT/MUM. Therefore, it is submitted by Mr. G.K. Muthukumar, the learned counsel for the respondent that all these matters have become ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.24 of 2014) K.N. Basha, Chairman 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order of Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai dated 09/03/2010 dismissing the notice of opposition filed by the appellant opposing the registration of the trademark •JONES–(label) by the respondent herein. 2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is a foreign company and they are the registered proprietors of trademark •JONES NEW YORK–and using it internationally in relation to wide range of goods from the year 1966 and acquired international reputation. It is their case that they are dealing in clothing for men, women and children, hosiery, footwear, leather goods etc. It is claimed by the appellant that they are the prior user of the trademark •Jones New York and they are acquired international reputation and transborder reputation. It is their case that the respondents have copied and adopted the opponents trademark in respect of identical /...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA) Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. The instant appeal arises out of the order dated 30/08/2005 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, dismissing the opposition No.KOL-166848 and allowing the application No.739760 in class 5 to proceed to registration under the provision of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are -- The respondent herein filed an application for registration of the trade mark œHepatone? under No.739760 in class 5 on 17/12/1996. The mark was claimed to be used since 13/03/1956. The said application was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. Mega 3 dated 14/10/2003 at page 88. The appellant herein opposed the said registration on various grounds. 3. On completion of the pleadings, the Deputy Registrar heard both the parties and passed the impugned order dismissing the opposition and allowing the application for registration. 4. The Registrar held that the rival trade ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.19 of 2014) K.N. Basha, Chairman 1. The learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Arun C. Mohan as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. V. Sivakumar submitted before the Board that the matter was amicably settled between the parties before the Honble High Court of Madras in C.S. No.1003 of 2008 on the basis of certain terms and conditions. 2. Today the learned counsel for the respondent would produce the judgement copy of the Honble High Court of Madras dated 03/07/2013 in C.S. No.1003 of 2008. It is seen that the suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their proprietor/partners/directors as the case may be, their associate companies, heirs, legal representatives, successors in business, assigns, servants, agents, transporters, distributors, printers, stockists, wholesalers, dealers, retailers or any one claiming through or under them from committing acts of infringement of plaintiffs registered trademark SILVER FOAM XXX pack...
Tag this Judgment!