Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: intellectual property appellate board ipab Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.017 seconds)

May 04 2012 (TRI)

M/S Thayar Dairy Vs. Thayar Food Products and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : May-04-2012

..... was running a provision store in the name of thayar dairy and was in fact marketing the respondents products. suddenly, a cease and desist notice was issued, all efforts at mediation failed. there is absolutely no dishonesty in adoption and respondents are the registered owner. they have filed the partnership deed of thayar food products, the adoption of the mark, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 2012 (TRI)

Newage Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spl’s Sidhartha Limited

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jan-02-2012

circuit bench sitting at delhi d.p.s. parmar, technical member(patents): 1. this is a transferred appeal application received from the delhi high court in relation to an appeal against the order of the controller dated 3rd may, 2006 in respect of specification no.191793 filed under patent application number 861/del/2000 on 25th september, 2000 which was opposed under section 25 existed before the patent (amendment) act, 2005 by m/s. newage laminators pvt. ltd. brief facts of the case 2. m/s. shriram institute of industrial research, new delhi filed their application no.861/del/2000 dated 25th september 2000 for the grant of patent for their invention entitled ??a rodent repellant composition and a process for the preparation thereof ? . the m/s. shriram institute of industrial research assigned their rights to m/s. spls siddhartha ltd. new delhi vide assignment dated 1st june 2001 and filed a request under section 20 for change in the applicant for patent on 4th october 2001. accordingly, the said application proceeded in the name of m/s. spls sidhartha ltd. new delhi. the application was examined by patent office and first examination report containing the statement of objections was forwarded to the applicant on 8th may, 2002. the complete specification was accepted after the applicant complied with the requirements and acceptance of the application was notified in the gazette of india part-iii section 2 on 3.1.2004. 3. m/s. newage laminators pvt. ltd. (the appellant) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2012 (TRI)

Shell Transource Limited Vs. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Feb-03-2012

(circuit bench hearing at mumbai) order no. 31/2012 prabha sridevan, chairman: 1. the plea of non-user is raised to remove the mark and the person defending registration does not plead the facts to show user or bonafide intention to use. would the person pleading non-user be still bound to adduce evidence of non-user. this is the question in this case. 2. this application has been filed for removing the mark shell autoserv under registration no. 1237451 in class 36. 3. the ground on which the applicant seeks rectification is that the impugned mark has not been used by the respondent in respect of the services for which it is registered. the applicant has been using the mark since february 2003. shell is part of their corporate name since 1990. the applicant is the largest growing bpo delivering quality services. they serve fifty of the counters leading banks and are also one of the four major franchisee of nsdl. they have been in the business since 1990 and have registered large and impressive sales of their business under the name shell computers limited and since 2003 under the name shell transource limited. they afford various services in the financial and insurance sectors. because of extensive floods, the applicant is unable to produce the necessary records. in february 2006, the applicant adopted a distinctive thumb imprint device also. they have achieved an enviable reputation because of the quality of their services. when the trade marks act extended its protection to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2012 (TRI)

Citibank, N.A./Citigroup Inc. Vs. Wealth Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Mar-09-2012

order (no.52/2012) prabha sridevan, chairman: 1. an application for removal of the mark wealthadvisors (logo) bearing no.1317858 in class 36. 2. according to the applicant, applicant is the proprietor of the trade mark citi wealth advisors/citigroup wealth advisors (annexure ??a). the applicant came to know about the impugned trade mark through a search. they missed the advertisement of the impugned trade mark and therefore did not oppose the same. according to them ??wealth advisors ? is descriptive and it would be against public interest to grant monopoly to a single trader to the word ??wealth advisors ? involving services in class 36 and it is also stated that the word ??wealth advisors ? has become publici juris in respect of the services falling under class 36. therefore they sought for rectification. the evidence filed by them is at annexure ??a. ??a-16 is an advertisement of the applicant which speaks of their online brokerage facility called ??citi wealth advisors ? . exhibit ??a-18 is the dictionary meaning of wealth. annexure ??b-1 ? is ??ask wealth advisors ? . annexure ??b-3 is wealth advisors, inc. annexure ??b-4 is ??tamalpais wealth advisors ? and so on. 3. in the counter statement the respondent contended that they are a full service investment advisory company established in the year 2004. they had honestly adopted the mark ??wealthadvisors ? and ??wai ? monogram logo. they have extensively and widely advertised the mark. according to them their mark has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2012 (TRI)

J.K. Goel Vs. the Hon’ble Controller General of Patents and Anoth ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Mar-09-2012

circuit bench sitting at delhi order(no.50/2012) s. usha, vice-chairman: 1. appeal arising out of the order passed by the assistant registrar of trade marks, chennai dated 10.1.2006 removing the registered trade marks under nos.479020 and 492090 in class 5 under the trade marks act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ??act). facts of the case: 2. the appellants herein had been carrying on business in respect of ayurvedic medicine. they had adopted the trade mark ??energic-31 ? on 15th october, 1980. the appellant had adopted and used the said trade mark since 1980 for a value of more than rs.18 crores and had spent a substantial amount of several lacs of rupees in advertising the said product throughout the country. by virtue of such use and sales the trade mark ??energic-31 ? was solely associated with the appellant and had thus acquired a distinctive character in favour of the appellant. 3. on 20.2.1984, the appellant filed an application for registration of the trade mark ??energic-31 ? in class 5 under no.417986 claiming user since 1980. the said application was advertised in the trade marks journal no.952 dated 1.2.1989 at page 1230. the mark was opposed by one m/s. shakti vikas sansthan, aligarh on the ground that the acceptance of the trade mark ??energic 31 ? was violative of the provisions of section 9 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958. 4. the appellant also filed a subsequent application for the identical trade mark ??energic-31 ? claiming a longer user .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2012 (TRI)

Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade Ma ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Apr-04-2012

order (no.75 of 2012) prabha sridevan, chairman: 1. this appeal is against the order granting registration to the mark ultrafilter under application no.803445 in class 7. the application was advertised in trade mark journal dated 21.11.2003. the appellant filed notice of opposition. according to the appellant, the respondent had been the licensee of the appellant company and had acknowledged the proprietorship of the appellant with regard to the trade mark ultrafilter, therefore the adoption is illegal. 2. the appellant submitted that they have honestly adopted the composite mark consisting of parallel lines with a monogram containing intertwined letters ufi, and beneath the parallel lines the word india appears. according to them, they are using the mark since 01.11.1986. the learned deputy registrar disallowed the opposition filed by the appellant, therefore the present appeal has been filed. it must be stated at the outset that between the same parties there were earlier rectification applications for removal of the same trade mark and by order dated 12.09.2008 in ora/1 and 2/2007/tm/ch, this board directed the registrar to expunge the marks. 3. the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, with regard to the same parties and in respect of identical marks when a decision has been given, the co-ordinate bench cannot have a different view and must follow the view of the earlier bench. 4. the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2012 (TRI)

Pernod Ricard India Private Ltd Vs. the Controller General of Patents ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Apr-16-2012

order (no.89/2012) prabha sridevan, chairman: 1. this case raises a pure question of law and it depends on the construction of s.25(3) and 25(4) of the trade marks act, 1999 . by a detailed judgement interim stay was granted in favour of the appellant and since both the counsel prayed for early hearing, we posted the matter in february 2012, when the matter was heard. 2. the appellant before us is the registered owner of the mark ??master blend ? (mb in short). the respondents mark is ??band master blend ? (bmb in short). according to the appellant, it has a world-wide reputation as a manufacturer of very popular alcoholic beverages. in several countries it adopted the mark mb and in india, it is the registered owner of the said mark no. 1456202. the appellant claimed user from 1995. the registration was granted with effect from the date of application i.e. 25.03.2006. it was advertised in the journal no. 1441 on 01.06.2010. the appellant came to know of the mark ??bmb only when the respondent objected to the excise approval of the label ??mb ? . the respondents objection was over-ruled on 06.01.2011 as the mark ??bmb had expired by then. according to the appellant, though then they came to know of the marks ??band master blend ? registration nos. 488802 and 488803, the marks had already been removed from the register in 2010. the said removal had been notified in the journal on 01.03.2010. the marks had in fact expired on 07.04.2009. one year after the date of expiry of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2012 (TRI)

Manikchand and Sons (J) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rasiklal Manikchand Dharwal (Huf ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Apr-20-2012

circuit sitting at mumbai order(no.94/2012) prabha sridevan: 1. this rectification application is filed for removal of the mark no.885050 ??manikchand ? . in the name of rasiklal manikchand dhariwal (h.u.f.) in class 14. 2. the applicant is carrying on business in guwahati. their predecessor in interest was one manikchand soni, a goldsmith and dealing in goods and services covered by class 14 of the fourth schedule of the trade marks rules, 2002 under the name and style of manikchand nandkishore soni and has been using ??manikchand ? as the trade mark/name and/or trading style since 1947. in 1998 the applicant company was formed and the trade mark was transmitted to the company. the respondents have registered the mark in class 14 without any bonafide intention to use the same in relation to the goods and services. the registration was effected from 3.11.1999 and there has been no bonafide use of the mark by the respondents in relation to the said goods or services up to a date of three months before the date of the application and also for a continuous period of five years from the date on which the trade mark was entered in the register. along with the statement of case, the applicant filed annexure ??a to ??i. 3. the respondents filed their counter statement denying the allegations of non use. according to them two user agreements were executed on 10.2.2006, one in favour of ??zee bangles ? and the other in favour of ??m/s. sanjay jewellers ? . the said user agreements .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2012 (TRI)

Prakash Packers and Movers Private Limited Vs. M/S. Prakash Packers an ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : May-04-2012

(circuit bench sitting at mumbai) order (no.108/2012) prabha sridevan: 1. the two marks are identical - ??prakash packers and movers ? , even the ??flying bird ? logo is identical. therefore one is evidently flattering the other by imitation. the question is who was the first. 2. the impugned mark is no1105671 in class 16. the applicants mark is 1367902 in class 39. we heard both the counsel. 3. these are the evidence filed by the applicant ?? (i) annexure ?? i ?? copy of certificate of incorporation of applicant (ii) annexure ?? ii ?? copy of resolution of board of directors (iii) annexure ?? iii ?? copy of affidavit of mr. sanjay agarwal (iv) annexure ?? iv ?? copy of label of applicants trade (v) annexure v ?? copy of lease agreement with mr.t. lingaya dated 15.09.1995 (vi) annexure vi ?? copy of agreement for providing vehicles with mr. ansar pasha dated 16.10.1995 (vii) annexure vii ?? copy of letter of punjab and sind bank dated 06.09.2005 (viii) annexure viii ?? sales figures and sales promotional expenses from 1995 to 31.05.2007 (ix) annexure ix ?? copy of assignment deed dated 01.06.2007 (x) annexure x ?? copy of trade marls registrys order dated 17.10.2007 (xi) annexure xi ?? copies of plaint, injunction petition of o.s. no.256 of 12005 (xii) annexure xii ?? copies of plaint, notice of motion and order passed in suit no.2075 of 2007 (xiii) annexure xiii ?? copy of ??b report dated 10.06.2007 filed by kalasipalyam police station, bangalore 4. along with the counter .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 2012 (TRI)

Dr. Ashok Madhusudhan Bhat Vs. M/S Harichand D. Nagpal and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : May-04-2012

(circuit bench sitting at mumbai) order (no. 113/2012) prabha sridevan, chairman: 1. the rectification is for removal of mark no. 235004 in class 34 label mark noni. the applicant is the owner of the mark nova which was adopted in the year 1935. according to him, noni will result in confusion and it is not entitled to be registered. 2. the applicant deals in manufacturing and marketing of cosmetic products including nova brilliantine (label). they have other registration for the same mark nova and the registration is valid and subsisting as on date. the artistic work and trade address for nova (carton) and nova labels have been registered under the copy-rights act. in november, 2007, the applicant received complaints from dealers that there is misuse of trade mark and art work of nova. according to him, the label and trade address of noni is a piracy of the mark nova. the applicants mark has been in existence since 1946. the applicant seeks rectification on the ground that the registration has been done contrary to section 9 and 11 of the act and therefore, it wrongly remains in the register. 3. the respondent filed their counter stating, that they had been engaged in manufacture and marketing of cosmetics for more than six decades. they had adopted this label in 1958 and had been continuously and uninterruptedly used it since then. they are the proprietor of impugned trade mark label noni as of 29.04.1966 in respect of nova brilliantine (label). it has been published in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //