Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) ORDER (No.80 of 2013) Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman The instant appeal arises out of the order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks allowing the request on Form TM-23 for recordal of the assignment of trade mark BABU registered under No.251680 in Class 34 in respect of Bidis. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: M/s. Babubhai Rashidbhai, a partnership firm consisted of two partners namely Rashidbhai and Babubhai who are real brothers. The firm owned the trade mark BABU registered under NO.251680 in Class 34 in respect of Bidis. 3. On 16/12/1993, the partnership firm was dissolved. Persuant to the dissolution, the appellant did not receive any share in the goodwill of the registered trade mark. The 2nd respondent ie. Babubhai had sent a letter dated 21/06/1993 to the appellant ie. Rashidbai stating that he had not paid the appellant any amount towards goodwill of the trade mark and had also expressed his inability to pay the same. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Order No.79/2013) Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, Chairman In the post grant opposition to Patent No.209251 which related to a compound which modulates the activity of protein kinases, the Assistant Controller was pleased to revoke the patent. The patent covers the product Sunitinib which is marketed under the name, Sutent. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the post grant opposition was allowed and the patent was revoked on 24.9.2012. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed a writ petition challenging the order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. An interim order was passed by the Writ Court directing the respondent No.2 not to take any steps towards marketing its drug. Against this, the respondent No.2 filed an appeal and thereafter, moved the Honble Supreme Court. The order dated 24.9.2012 was set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice and the matter was sent back to the Assistant Controller for disposal after hearing afresh. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(ORDER No.77/2013) Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, Chairman OA/13/2011/TM/CH The mark in question was applied for by the respondent herein. It was opposed by the appellant. The respondent applied for Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel under Application No. 1408388 in Class 42. That was opposed by the appellant. Both the oppositions went in favour of the respondent herein. Here we are concerned with the mark 1385141 applied for by the appellant. 2. The appellants application was made on 15.09.2005 claiming user from 30.04.2005. It was advertised in the TM Journal 1352 dated 16.08.2006. The notice of opposition was filed on 16.03.2007 by the respondent. The respondents application was made on 23.12.2005 claiming user from 07.04.1957. It was advertised in the TM Journal No.1371 dated 01.07.2007. The appellant filed the Notice of Opposition on 08.01.2008. Hearing was held on 06.08.2010 in both the matters and Orders were passed on 20.09.2010 allowing respondents opposition and dismissing the appellants op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER No.76/2013 Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: This appeal is filed against the order treating the TM (6) filed on 8th March 2006 as time barred and the application in class 42 as deemed to have been abandoned. The appellant applied for the mark DARJEELING LOUNGE and it was advertised in the journal on 07.02.2005. Notice of opposition was filed by the respondents herein which was served on the applicant. The appellant filed their counter statement on 08.03.2006. The deputy Registrar held that since the notice of opposition was served on the applicants on 22.12.2005, the counter statement was filed beyond the statutory period. 2. The impugned order also shows that notice was given vide letter late 01.08.2008, to show cause why this time-barred counter statement should be taken on record. But there was no reply, and hearing was fixed on 11.12.2008. It is seen from the impugned order that no one appeared on behalf of the applicants to show cause why there was a delay in filing the counter st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No. 73 of 2013) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: This appeal is against the rejection of the application filed by the appellant on the ground that a new use for a known product cannot be patentable. 2. The application for patent IN/PCT/2002/00543 filed by FUMAPHARM AG on 26/04/2002 for their investigation relating to Fumaric Acid Derivatives effective against mitochondrial Diseases. They claimed priority from the application filed in Germany 10000577.2 dated 10/01/2000. It was filed as a national phase application in India subsequent to the filing of international application PCT/EP00/12504 dated 11/12/2000 through PCT. The claim 1 of the invention is filed related to use of individual or a mixture of fumaric acid derivatives for preparing a pharmaceutical composition for treating mitochondrial diseases. 3. The application was examined and the First Examination Report raise the following objections. Claims 1 to 12 do not constitute an invention and the invention lacks inventive step o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.71 of 2013) Smt. Prabha Sridevan, Chairman The invention relates to Bicyclic Heteroaromatic compounds and in particular quinazoline derivative which exhibits protein tyrosine kinase inhibition. 2. We have fixed the date of hearing in May. We thought that we might seek the opinion of independent experts appointed by us as neutral witnesses. We have found that when the parties furnish expert evidence, predictably the opposite side attacks the evidence. We thought this problem would be obviated by the appointment of a Court witness. We find that while the Applicant has come up with the names of scientists in India, the respondent has come up with the names of scientists from elsewhere. 3. We are of the opinion that the expert must be an expert agreed to by both the parties. The fees fixed will be shared by both the parties. Each will make out a draft for its share in favour of the expert and hand it over to the registrar of the IPAB. These will be handed over to the expert by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order (No. 54 of 2013) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member: This is an application for revocation of the patent No.196341 (Invention in short) granted to Alloys Wobben for the invention A Device for transmitting Electrical Energy From a Generator. 2. From the records in Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), it was observed that this matter was heard by the earlier Board on 5th October, 2010 and orders were reserved. Since the Hon'ble Technical Member Shri Chandrasekaran retired on 2nd December, 2010, decision was not issued. So this case was listed to be heard again. In the meantime, the matter was transferred to the new counsel for the respondents. On completion of all the formalities, the matter was heard on 20.02.2012 to 22.02.2012. 3. Learned counsel Mr. R. Parthasarathy appeared for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. Praveen Anand represented the respondent. Both the counsel, besides arguing the matter at length, has also filed their written submissions on the preliminary i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Smt. Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: The invention of the appellant is titled Systems, Methods, Interfaces and Software for Extending Search Results beyond initial query-defined boundaries 2. The respondent refused to grant patent on the ground that it lack of novelty and inventive step and that it is not allowable as per Section 3 (k) of the Act, as it is a computer programme. The appellant is aggrieved by the decision. 3. The learned counsel Shri Samaresh Chakraborty appearing for the appellant, submitted that the original claim 1 to 8 had been replaced by revised claims 1 to 30. The original claims are contained in pages 182 and 183 of the paper book. The revised claims are from page 184 and 189. The applicant was originally Thomson Global Resources and by a special resolution and approval of the Registrar of Companies, the name had changed to the present name and this has been officially indicated to the respondent. The First Examination Report id dated 15.09.2008 and objection 1 is sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No. 41 of 2013) Ms. S. Usha, Vice Chairman: The applicant/petitioner herein filed the instant miscellaneous petition for taking on record the affidavit of Mr.Harne Vinay Chandrakant and to pass such further orders. 2. The grounds of the miscellaneous petition are that one Mr. T.S.Rajagopalan had left the services of the applicant company on 22.01.2009 and that the respondents had intimated the applicants that they wish to cross examine the deponent of the revocation petition. Therefore, the applicants had filed an affidavit of Mr.Harne Vinay Chandrakant to prove the contents of the application. The affidavit which is filed now is for certain expert opinion as to the validity of the patent. 3. The affidavit also gives the details about the qualification of the deponent. Mr.Chandrakant is a Mechanical Engineer from the Gujarat university and has done his post-graduation (M-Tech) at IIT, Madras. He joined the applicant company as a Research Development Officer in the year 1982. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA) Order (No. 37 of 2013) MS. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman: Applicant is seeking cancellation of the trade mark KIT PLUS in class 19 registered under No. 998225 under the provisions of the Trade Mark Act 1999. 2. The applicant herein is carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of Plywood, Plyboard, laminates and allied goods and the said goods are sold under the trade mark KITPLY since 1982. The applicant also uses various other trade marks namely KITBOARD, KITBOARD PLUS, KITLAM, KITMICA, KITMDF and KIT WOOD. The applicants have also applied for registration of the trade mark having Kit as a prefix in various classes. The goods bearing the trade mark KIT is associated with the applicants and use by any other person would create confusion in the minds of the customers. The artistic mark has also been registered under the Copyright Act 1957 under No. A-53202/96 dated 29/03/1986. 3. The applicants goods bearing the trade mark with the prefix Kit has b...
Tag this Judgment!