Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order (No. 219 Of 2013) K.N. Basha, Chairman This appeal is against the order dated 30/03/2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing the Notice of Opposition No. MAS 236946 and MAS 236947 filed by the appellant herein with respect to the application No. 1257304 and 1257305 respectively. 2. The appellant herein has challenged the logo of the respondents trade mark claiming that the same is deceptively similar to that of the logo of the appellant. Both the respondent and the appellant are engaged in the manufacture and sale of watches. 3. The appellant challenged the impugned order on the ground that the findings arrived at by the Deputy Registrar are contrary to the facts and law and in all the probabilities of the case. The findings of the Deputy Registrar are perverse in holding that the logo is not similar to that of the appellant. 4. The appellant also raised ground to the effect that the Deputy Registrar had failed to notice that the mark applied for the registra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER No.243 of 2013 K.N Basha, Chairman: This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated 17.11.2009 dismissing the Interlocutory Petition dated 19.09.2009 filed by the appellant herein. 2. The appellant filed an application seeking for registration of a trade mark PREETHAM (label mark) advertised under application No.1496400 in class 21, under proviso to Section 20(1) in Trade Marks Journal No.1383 dated 01.01.2008. The respondent herein filed a Notice of Opposition raising objection against registration of the aforesaid mark under various provisions of Section 9,11 and 18 of the Act and Rules (hereinafter referred as Act and Rules). The appellant filed the Counter Statement to the Notice of Opposition. 3. Perusal of Interlocutory Application filed by the appellant herein discloses that a specific objection was raised to the effect that TM-5 has not been signed by the opponent and has not been verified in accordance with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) V. Ravi, Technical Member: The appellant are aggrieved by the order of the Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi dated 3rd December, 1997 refusing application no 447061 in Class 9 in respect of the trade mark SHARP filed on 18.12.1985 and pray for the quashing of the same. The brief facts of the case is stated below:- 1. a) The said application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and opposed by two parties. One opposition was filed by the present respondent herein under no Del-8439. The other opposition was filed by M/s Associated Electronics and Electrical (Bangalore) PVT. Ltd. under no Del.8306. b) The appellant contested both the oppositions. Opposition no. 8439 decided on 3rd December, 1997 was allowed which is the impugned order in these proceedings. The appellant had earlier filed an appeal before Honble Delhi High Court challenging this ruling but did not seek stay of the impugned order and no order of interim nature was passed by the Hon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench sitting at Kolkata) Ms.S.Usha Vice Chairman The above four Original Rectification Applications are for cancellation of the trade marks A.T.ANU (word) under No.1261342 in class 24, A.T.Anu-Premier Collection under No.1288066 in class 24, A.T.Anu-Pretty women under No.1288067 in class 24 and A.T.Anu - Bangashree under No.1288068 in class 24 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. The application under No.1261342 was filed on 16.1.2004 claiming user since 01.01.1990 and the mark was registered on 14.10.2005. The other applications under Nos.1288066, 1288067 and 1288068 were filed on 04.06.2004 claiming user since 01.11.2003. 3. The applicant has been carrying on business of manufacturing and trading of various types of sarees and textile materials under the name and style of Anuj Textiles. The said trade mark Anuj became the house mark of the applicants since 1988. 4. The trade mark Anuj became distinctive by virtue of long and continuous use. The expenses tow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT AHEMEDABAD) Order No.187/2013 V. Ravi, Technical Member: The applicant is a proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pressure control walls and regulators, filters, safety shut off system and instrument systems for the last four decades. They are doing extensive business all over India and their products are widely exported. The applicants seek removal of the registered mark NIRMA under no.422864 (in Class 6) of the respondent. The main ground for cancellation are summarised below: The applicant assert that they are the proprietors of the trade mark NIRMAL with a device since 1973. This mark was inspired and coined from the first name NIRMALA w/o Shri Dinkarrai. V. Desai a former partner of the applicant firm. The applicant had applied for the registration of the trade mark with device under no.1009559 in Class 6 which was opposed by the respondent herein being opposition No.BOM-164430 mainly on the ground of deceptive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench sitting at Delhi) ORDER:- (192 of 2013) Ms. S. Usha Vice Chairman The instant appeal arises out of the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks under Section 57 (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 removing the registered trade mark SAMAR SUHANA under No.1881086 in Class 11. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Vepeejay Electrical Industries and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Cooler Motors, Cooler Pumps, A.C. Fans, Exhaust Fans, Desert Coolers and parts thereof, Geyser Heating Elements and other Electrical Appliances. The appellant is the registered proprietor of the trade mark Suhana under No.572598 in class 11 as of 05.05.1992. The said mark was initially registered in the name of the appellants father and later assigned in favour of the appellant. Necessary request in Form TM-23 has been filed and is pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench sitting at Kolkata) ORDER:- (191 of 2013) Ms. S. 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 mark was proposed to be used on the date of application. The mark was advertised before acceptance in Trade Marks Journal No.1335 dated 01.10.2005 at page 226. 3. The appellants opposed the registration on the ground that they are in the business of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations for several years. They are using the trade mark Sensur and are registered properties of the trade mark Sensur under No.367409 B as of 10.10.1980 They are using the trade mark Sensur since the year 1982. Their trade m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench sitting at Delhi) ORDER:-(190 of 2013) Ms. S. Usha Vice Chairman The original rectification application is for renewal of the trade mark Nirma registered No.1011388 in Class 7. 2. The counsel for the applicant was present and there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The counsel for the applicant filed a letter dated 22.06.2013 addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Board stating that the mark has not been renewed after 2011 and also the copies of the letter by the respondents agent to the Trade Mark Registry and to this Board Registry stating that they are not interested in the registration and that they are withdrawing the registration. 3. On perusal of the letter to the Trade Mark Registry dated 22.04.2005 for withdrawal of the application it is noticed that till date, no orders as to removal has been passed by the Trade Marks Registry. 4. As the impugned trade mark has not been renewed after 2011 and also that the respondents are not interested in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench sitting at Kolkata) ORDER:- (189 of 2013) Ms. S. Usha Vice Chairman Original rectification application has been filed for removal of the Trade Mark ROLLY under No.1399509 in class 16 under the provisions of the Trade Mark Act, 1999. 2. The applicants herein are well known manufacturers and marketers of writing instruments viz., pen and ball pen, jell pen, sketch pens, refills and parts and have been in business for more than 20 years. They are the registered proprietors of the trade mark Rolly under No.518783 in class 16. In fact, the trade mark was applied for and registered in the name of their predecessors-in-title trading as Sanghvi and Company. It was originally conceived by their predecessors which is an invented mark being inherently distinctive mark and therefore was accepted and advertised in Trade Marks Journal in part A of the Register. The said mark has been renewed and is validly subsisting as on date. 3. In October, 1997 the said mark was assigned to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (NO.194 of 2013) K.N. Basha, Chairman: This application is preferred by the applicant seeking for the relief of removal, expunging and cancellation from the Register of the Trade Mark, the impugned trade mark Brothers Gulfgate along with the logo bearing No.1574327 in Class 42 registered as per the impugned registration certificate dated 27.02.2007. 2. This application was taken on file by the Registry and thereafter, the notice was served on the respondent and the respondent represented through the counsel by name Shri. S. Balachandran and filed the Vakalathnama. But the fact remains that subsequently, the very same counsel for the respondent Shri S. Balachandran, K. Rajasekaran and Shri T.K. Anuradha submitted a letter dated 04.07.2013 addressed to the Deputy Registrar, IPAB, Chennai stating that they have received the notice informing the date of hearing and with reference to this matter they have stated that they are not receiving any response and instructions from the respon...
Tag this Judgment!