Court : Trademark
Reported in : LC(2007)(2)158
1. This order will dispose of a proposed opposition dated 7^th November, 2006 filed by M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, at 135, Continental Building, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 and also at J-27, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi-110 049 (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicants' trade mark "ZEE TAJ GOPAL ZARDA" label per se filed under Application No. 1375299 in class 34 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1341 dated 1^st April, 2006 at page 1319, which made available to the public on 7^th July, 2006. A notice of opposition along with a request on Form TM-44 for extension of time for the purpose of filing the notice of opposition was filed to the aforesaid application on 7^th November, 2006 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now arises as to whether the request on Form TM-44 along with the notice of opposition filed by the above name...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2007)(34)PTC288Reg
1. This order will dispose of a proposed opposition dated 28th August, 2006 filed by M/s. Shree Rajmoti Industries, at Bhavnagar Road, Rajkot-3. Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicant's trade mark inter alia consisting of the device of 'Open seed with pearl' label per se filed under Application No. 1279800 in class 16 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1338 Supplementary (1) dated 15th January, 2006 at page 9323-9324, which made available to the public on 1st May, 2006. A notice of opposition alongwith a request on Form TM-44 for extension of time for filing the notice of opposition was filed to the aforesaid application on 28th August, 2006 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now arises as to whether the request on Form TM-44 alongwith the notice of opposition filed by the above named opponents on 28 August, 2006 is within the statutory period or not.2. Pursuant to this office letter No. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2007)(34)PTC117Reg
1. This will dispose of two requests on Form TM-57 filed by Mr. H.P.Singh, Advocate on behalf of Applicants for Rectification (hereinafter referred to as the (Petitioners) requesting to review a common order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks signed at Ahmedabad on 12.1.2005 and sealed at Chennai on 31.1.2005 in the above matter; 2. The grounds for review as stated by the petitioners briefly, inter alia, are as follows: That the applicants for rectification came to know about the passing of the order only on 9th March, 2005 when the applicants for rectification Counsel came to possess the book PTC Volume II dated 20th February, 2005 received on 9th March, 2005 where the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks is published at page 188 and that the applicants for rectification or the attorneys did not receive the hearing notice and the order passed is against the interest of justice and further prayed to review the order giving the applicants for rectification an o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application No. 1122804 dated 31.7.2002 for trade mark OMZEE was made by M/S. Zenon Healthcare Ltd. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as applicants in class 5 for medicines & pharmaceuticals claiming user from 18.7.2002. The mark was ordered to be advertised before acceptance and the same was advertised in the trade marks journal Mega 5 dated 14.11.2003. An opposition thereto was filed by M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd., Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as opponents). After taking on record counter statement and opponents' evidence, the applicants were called upon to file evidence in support of application. The applicants in reply relied upon the counter statement. As the applicants' did not file any evidence the stage of filing of opponents' reply evidence had to be skipped and final hearing was fixed on 21.10.2005.2. Ms. Sejal Shah being representative from the Advocates' firm requested that the matter be decided on the basis of the records available a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC536Reg
1. This order will dispose of a proposed opposition dated 2nd May, 2006 filed by M/s. Alpharma Inc., a company organized and incorporated under the laws of U.S.A., at One Executive Drive, Fort Lane, New Jersey 07024, U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicants' trade mark inter alia "ALPHAPHARM" filed under Application No. 1353874 in class 42 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1333 Supplementary (1) dated 15th August, 2005, which was made available to the public on 3rd January, 2006. A notice of opposition along with a request on Form TM-44 for extension of time by one month for filing the notice of opposition was filed to the aforesaid application on 2nd May, 2006 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now only arises as to whether the request on Form TM-44 along with the notice of opposition filed by the above named Opponents on 2nd May, 2006 is within the statutory period or not.2. Pursuant to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC531Reg
1. This order will dispose of a proposed Opposition dated 5th September, 2005 filed by M/s. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., a Swiss Company incorporated under the laws of the Switzerland, at 1800, Vevey, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicant's trade mark inter alia "CLASSIC" label per se filed under Application No. 1240715 in class 30 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1328 Supplementary (3) dated 21st February, 2005, which was made available to the public on 6th May, 2005. The above named Opponents filed a request on Form TM-44 on 18th August, 2005 for extension of time by one month for filing a notice of opposition on and followed by its notice of opposition to the aforesaid application on 5th September, 2005 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now only arises as to whether the aforesaid request on Form TM-44 followed by its notice of opposition filed by the Opponents on 5th Septem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC263Reg
1. This order will dispose of a proposed Opposition dated 16th November, 2005 filed by Shri Ashok Sharma trading as M/s. Bentex Control & Switchgear Co., at B-65/3, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110 028 (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponent") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the applicants' trade mark inter alia "BENTEC" word per se filed under Application No. 1169904 in class 9 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1329 Supplementary (1) dated 15th April, 2005, which was made available to the public on 2nd August 2005. The above named Opponent filed a request on Form TM-44 on 8th November, 2005 for extension of time by one month for filing a notice of opposition and followed by its notice of opposition to the aforesaid application on 16th November, 2005 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now only arises as to whether the aforesaid request on Form TM-44 followed by its notice of opposition filed by the Opponent on 16th November, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC517Reg
1. This order will dispose of a proposed opposition dated 1st February, 2006 filed by (1) Viduit Navinchandra Shah, (2) Milind Jagdishchandra Shah, (3) Smt. Charulata Hemant Shah, (4) Smt. Sarmista Pravinchandra Bhansali, (5) Sachin Pravin Bhansali, (6) Utpal Navinchandra Shah, (7) Pravin Kesgav Bhansali (H.U.F.), (8) Harendra Shantilal Shah, (9) Smt.Manjula Harendra Shah, (10) Hemant Jagdishchandra Shah (H.U.F.), (11) Viduit Navinchandra Shah (H.U.F.) and (12) Utpal Navinchandra Shah (H.U.F.) trading as M/s. Girnar Exports, registered partnership firm, at Girnar Complex, Kureshi Nagar, Kurla (East), Mumbai-400 070, State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicants' trade mark inter alia consisting of the words "RED LABEL" word per se filed under Application No. 601961B in class 30 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1331 Supplementary (1) dated 15th June, 2005, which was made available to the pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC416Reg
1. Word 'SATMOLA' was sought for registration in class 30 under Application No. 1283413 dated 11th May, 2004 by the above named Applicant. The mark was claimed to be used since 17th April, 1993.Eventually the application was advertised before acceptance under Section 20(1) proviso vide Trade Marks Journal No. 1328 Supplementary (5) dated 30th March, 2005 at page 9072.2. On 21st July, 2005 a notice of opposition on Form TM-5 was lodged by the above named Opponents objecting to the registration of the aforesaid impugned mark of the Applicant on the following grounds: That the Opponents are carrying on their old established business as manufacturers and merchants of ayurvedic medicinal preparations, tasty chewable tables, diggestive tablets, jaljeera, churan etc. since 1983 and are the registered proprietors of the trade mark 'SATMOLA' by way of assignment deed dated 19th June, 2001 under Nos. 404555 and 415672 and that various applications in different classes are pending for registrati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(33)PTC527Reg
1. A trade mark consisting of the words 'RARE BLEND' was sought for registration in class 33 for the goods "wines, spirits and liquors" under Application No. 1163330 dated 1st January, 2003 by the above named Applicants. The Mark was proposed to the used on the date of application. Eventually the application was advertised before acceptance under Section 20(1) proviso vide Trade Marks Journal No.Mega 5 dated 14th November, 2003 sat page 7490.2. On 23rd June, 2004 a notice of opposition on Form TM-5 was lodged by the above named Opponents objecting to the registration of the aforesaid impugned mark of the Applicants on the following grounds: That the Opponent is an old and well established association of members selling there Scotch whisky all over the world including India under international brand names and that there are 57 members engaged in the distillation and/or blending and/or sale of Scotch whisky.3. That principal aim of Opponent is to protect the interest of Scotch whisky tr...
Tag this Judgment!