Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC713Reg
1. The matter relates to the Review Petition dated 4th June, 2004 on Form TM-57 under Section 97(C) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 filed by the opponents/petitioners against the Order dated 5th May, 2004 passed by Shri Ramji Lal, Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (under the provisions of The Trade Marks Act, 1999) vide which the Opposition No. DEL-T-3769 was abandoned. The grounds of review are stated in the Review Petition (Statement of Case).2. In brief the facts in this case are that the trade mark Raja Gul Label was sought for registration under application No. 583085 in class 34 claiming proprietorship to the mark since the year 1987 by M/s Aftab Tobacco Products, Malikpura, P.O. Mohamadabad, Yusufpur, Distt, Ghazipur, U.P. The application was advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 1269 dated 16th April, 2002 at page No. 349.3. A notice of opposition on Form TM-5 was lodged on 5th August, 2002 by M/s Amanat Tobacco Gul Manufacturers, Near Mahavir Dharamshala, Yusufp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC510Reg
1. This will dispose of an Interlocutory Petition dtd. 21.6.2004 filed by the petitioner/opponent alongwith evidence in support of opposition inter alia praying for taking the said evidence on record under Rule 50(1) of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. On filing of the counter-statement by the applicant, a copy of the same was served on the opponent vide official letter dated 13.2.2003 inviting their attention to the erstwhile Rule 53(1) to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed period of two months from the date of service on them, but, the opponent neither filed evidence, nor relied on the facts stated in the Notice of Opposition as required under the erstwhile Rule 53(1). After more than 6 and half months from the date of receipt of the counter-statement by them, the opponent abruptly, filed a request on Form TM-56 on 5.9.2003 for extension of time for an accumulated period of six months under the erstwhile rules, which was allowed and the extension of time granted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of My 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Cancer Patients Aid Association., India, on September 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland October 31, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Gopakumar Nair Associates, Mumbai on behalf of M/s. CIPLA Ltd., Mumbai on July 5, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland on August 5, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Natco Pharma Ltd., India, on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland on July 25, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirmed by Giorgio Pietro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition tinder Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Hetero Drugs Ltd., India, on August 22, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland November 14, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirmed by Giorgio P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, New Delhi on behalf of M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Mainley of Switzerland on July 27, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC670Reg
1. This order will dispose of a proposed opposition dated 26th July, 2005 filed by M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Company Act, 1956 at 5/2, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi -110 026 (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 "KAMDHENU KC" label per se filed under Application No. 1291667 in class 19 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1328 Supplementary (2) dated 14th February, 2005, which was made available to the public on 15th April, 2005. The above named Opponents filed a request on Form TM-44 for extension of time by one month for filing notice of opposition and followed by its notice of opposition was filed to the said application on 26th July, 2005 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now only arises as to whether the request on Form TM-44 alongwith the notice of opposition filed by the above named Opponents on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2005)(31)PTC633Reg
1. This order will dispose of an Interlocutory Petition filed on 12th April, 2005 by M/s The Polo/Lauren Company, L.P., a Limited Partnership organised and existing under the laws of the State of New York, United States of America, of 650 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents/Petitioner). The case came up for hearing before me on 28th September, 2005. The brief facts of the case are-- 2. The opposition under No. MAS-111156 has been filed by M/s The Polo/Lauren Company, L.P., a Limited Partnership organised and existing under the laws of the State of New York, United States of America, of 650 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents/Petitioner) on 28.7.2003 to oppose the registration of trade mark "C&C Classic Polo" (label) applied for by the Applicants under Application No. 889702 in class 25.The Applicants filed counter statement on 9.2.2004 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Reported in : (2006)(32)PTC229Reg
1. Word 'ZYTRIN' was sought for registration under Application No.1069985 in class 5 dated 28th December, 2001 in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations by the above named Applicants. The mark was proposed to be used on the date of application. Eventually the application was advertised before acceptance under the proviso to Section 20(1) vide Trade Marks Journal No. 1306 (S-II) dated 4th November, 2003 at page 174.2. On 16th March, 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 on the following grounds:- 3. That the Opponents are a large company and a leading organization in the world in the field of healthcare and are the proprietors of several well-known trade marks including 'HYTRIN' which is being used since the year 1983 and is also registered under No. 420307 in class 5 in India.4. That the Opponents are the registered proprietors of the same trade mark 'HYTRIN' in variou...
Tag this Judgment!