Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-14-2006
Reported in : LC2007(1)210; 2007(34)PTC553(Mad)
..... , learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.4. it is not in dispute that the advertisement regarding the application for registration of the trade mark in question, appeared in the trade marks journal dated 16-7-1992 and it is also not in dispute that the notices of opposition were received by the registry on 23-11 ..... beyond the period of four months prescribed under section 21(1) of the act, is not proper. therefore, the order of the assistant registrar of trade marks, dated 30-6-1993 and that of the learned judge in t.m.a. nos. 7 and 8 of 1993 are set aside and the respondent ..... by the learned senior counsel, the issue is already covered by the judgment of the division bench of travancore-cochin in pavunny ouseph v. registrar of trade marks air 1952 tc 77 and we respectfully agree with the ratio laid down therein. if the words 'date of the advertisement' are given any other meaning ..... fact received by various subscribers only on 23/24-7-1992, the appellants filed 4 supporting affidavits sworn to by employees of 4 leading firms of trade mark attorneys at delhi, along with their interlocutory applications. three of them confirmed having received the journal on 24-7-1992 and one of them confirmed ..... -1992. but according to the appellants, the trade mark journal dated 16-7-1992 was received in the office of their attorney at delhi on 24-7-1992 and that therefore the notice of opposition .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-31-2006
Reported in : 2006(32)PTC285(Del)
..... issuance of appropriate writ, direction and order in the nature of certiorari and/or any other writ/order quashing the registration certificate of the trade mark registration no. 1280913 granted under the trade marks act, 1999 by the registrar of trade marks. it has been asseverated that the petitioner has filed a rectification application before the intellectual property appellate board (ipab) which, however, is not ..... pursue appeal/rectification application which it has already filed. secondly, the petitioner can avail the remedy of a review as contemplated by sections 57(2) and 127(c) of the trade marks act. he also contends that while the contesting respondents have no objection to the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the relief before the ipab, if any ..... been noted in these proceedings that on 20.10.2005 joint secretary, government of india, had appeared in this court and had stated that the appointment of the technical member (trade marks) of the appellate board would be carried out within one month. this was not done and time was extended up to 20.1.2006. the appointment of the technical member ..... court besides generating a multiplicity of proceedings.6. prima facie on the strength of the above observations no proceedings are maintainable before the registrar, trade marks, either under section 57(2) or section 127(c) of the trade marks act, 1999. in any event it is not open to the respondents to dictate to the petitioner which remedy it should avail of. if .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2006
Reported in : 2006(32)PTC733(Del)
..... application has been opposed and the opposition has been decided in favor of the applicant, the registrar shall, unless the central government otherwise directs, register the said trade mark and the trade mark when registered shall be registered as of the date of the making of the said application and that date shall, subject to provisions of section 154, be deemed ..... ., a division bench of bombay high court had declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the single judge in granting injunction in similar trade marks 'pacitane' which was a registered trade mark and ' parkitane' which was not a registered trade mark. relying on the observation in n.r. dongre v. whirlpool corporation (supra) and printers (mysore) private ltd. v. pothan joseph : ..... practices in industrial or commercial matters, and(b) is not such as to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.(2) a registered trade mark is not infringed where--(a) the use in relation to goods or services indicates the kind, quality, quantity, intended purposes, value, geographical origin, the time ..... of the defendant has also chosen a vial the vials shape, however, it is slightly different.6. plaintiffs' trade mark: defendant' trade mark' plaintiff's mark 'meronem'. the defendant's mark is `meromer'19. the defendant has produced a certificate of registration of his trade mark 'meromer' which is dated 1st december, 2005 during the pendency of the case. his plea is that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-27-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)BomCR504; 2006(33)PTC321(Bom)
..... the application for registration in the journal.rule 51(3) was omitted by notification no. s.o. 397 dated 23rd january, 1969.trade marks act, 1999.section 21 of the trade marks act, 1999 reads as under:opposition to registration: (1) any person may, within three months from the date of the advertisement ..... . the question then, that we have been called upon to answer is whether rule 47(6) is ultra vires of section 21 of the trade marks act, 1999. the primary object of enacting section 21 is to effect registration at the earliest and therefore, only these objections which are filed within ..... grounds upon which the opponent objects to the registration. if the registration is opposed on the ground that the trade mark in question resembles marks already on the register, the registration numbers of such trade marks and the dates of the journals in which they have been advertised shall be set out.(2) an ..... these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved, as his application was time barred. it is admitted that though the mark was published in trade mark journal dated 1.6.2005, it was made available to members of public only on 4.10.2005. subsequent thereto, respondent nos. 1 ..... one month in aggregate on an application made to the registrar in prescribed manner. the respondent no. 1 has framed rules which are known as trade mark rules, 2002 which hereinafter shall be referred to as rules. we are concerned with rule 47(6). rule 47(6) literally read enables extension .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-2006
Reported in : 2006(33)PTC4(Bom)
..... , the contention of mr. vaidyanathan that in view of change in the language of section 8 of the trade marks act as compared to section 5 of the trade marks act, 1940, registration of trade mark is to be made only in respect of class or genus and not in respect of articles of different species ..... law has further developed and the principle of common field of activity and the allied product has been expanded. in the kerly's law of trade marks and trade names, 14th edition 2005, the learned author has stated as under:there is no rule that the defendant must operate in the same field ..... that the principles in respect of cognate goods and allied products as laid down by the well known writer kerly in kerley's law of trade marks and trade names 12th edition must be restated. the learned author has dealt with the case of the same description or associated goods in vol. 10 ..... , particularly paras, 40 and 43 of the said judgment read as under:40. mr. daruwalla also relied upon the passage from kerry's law of trade marks and trade names, 12th edition, paras 10-12 which is as under:the test to be applied:the test whether or not goods or services are 'of the ..... conscience. conditions peculiar to this country may however necessitate acceptance of the english law with certain modifications. in england there is now the trade marks act of 1905, under which trade-marks are registered for specified classes of goods. though the provisions of that enactment are based on decisions given before the act was passed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-05-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR439; 2006(3)BomCR252; 2006(4)MhLj396; LC2007(2)185; 2006(33)PTC180(Bom)
..... denied to the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs have made an incorrect statement in the plaint. but as the purpose of granting temporary injunction in a suit for infringement of trade-mark or trade label is not only to protect the interest of the plaintiffs, but also to protect the interest of the general public, in my opinion, denial of temporary injunction ..... agreement dt.19-4-2002 referred to above are relevant and by reason thereof, the defendants are estopped from disputing the validity or popularity or reputation of the plaintiffs' mark. 6. the trade marks, brand names and the get up in which the beer will be sold, supplied and delivered by mrsbl (defendants) to swbl (plaintiffs) or as per direction of ..... ) reputation, which the plaintiffs have established for the reasons stated above (ii) misrepresentation, which is established by the plaintiffs by reason of the identical essential feature of the plaintiffs' trade mark being used by the defendants and (iii) damage, which is established by the plaintiffs by reason of the confusion created by the defendants. the plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to ..... filed a statement showing their annual sales from 1993-94. the plaintiffs state that they have made efforts to popularise their beer sold under the said trade mark and have issued sale material bearing the trade mark 'haywards 5000'. they have spent substantial sums of moneys on publicity and sales promotional expenses. they have filed a chart showing the expenditure incurred by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-2006
Reported in : ILR2006KAR3961; 2007(34)PTC164(Karn)
..... i am' and therefore the plaintiff alone can claim rights over the said slogan as a trade mark.4. the defendants contended that:(1) as per section 2(1)(w) of the trade marks act, 1999, the expression, 'registered trade mark' means a trade mark which is actually on the register of trade marks maintained by the government of india and which is in force. admittedly, the slogan, 'i am ..... manufactured by the plaintiff. whether there is, prima facie, any deception resulting in passing off and consequent loss or likelihood of damage to the plaintiff, is not forthcoming. the registered trade mark of both the parties are totally different. they can be easily distinguished. whether the usage of the general phrase 'i am what i am' has resulted in any such confusion ..... the facts of the present case.8. per contra the learned counsel for the respondent supports the findings recorded by the court below contending that the definition of the expression 'trade mark' includes even a set of words. he draws the attention of the court to the following reported decisions:i) laxmikant v. patel v. chetanbhai shah and anr. : air2002sc275 ;ii) satyam ..... 'i am what i am'. the appellants herein are aggrieved by the grant of temporary injunction restraining them from using the logo 'i am what i am' along with their trade mark.2. the appellants herein are defendants in the suit, o.s.no. 16861/2005 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against them restraining them from using on their .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-22-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2166
..... 1957. admittedly the registration number is under the copyright act, 1957, and not under the act, 1999. there cannot be and there is no infringement of an unregistered trade mark under the trade mark act, 1999. however all the three ingredients of passing off, i.e. disclosure of goodwill, demonstration of misrepresentation and likelihood of suffering of irreparable harm and injury in ..... of 'passing off as observed hereinbefore. in view of the provisions of section 23 in consequence to the provisions of sections 18, 19 and 21 of the trade marks act, 1999 the trade mark of the plaintiff-respondents has to be registered as of date of making of such application, i.e. 1993 which would be deemed to be the date ..... of acceptance of such application before its registration, neither there has been any opposition to the said registration under section 21. section 23 requires the registrar to register the trade mark, where the procedure for registration has been completed (subject to the conditions mentioned therein) and the same shall be registered as of date of making of such application ..... assumption that the plaintiffs-respondents had a registered trademark; that the plaintiff-respondents came forward with the allegations in their suit that their trademark was registered under the trade mark act bearing number 1255208 but when the appellant-defendant controverted this assertion then the plaintiff-respondents with permission from court amended their plaint and substituted the number by another .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-30-2006
Reported in : LC2007(1)41; 2007(34)PTC49(Del)
..... or any other idol deceptively similar thereto.60. i pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant to deliver up all geometry boxes, packaging material, stationery etc. having the trade mark 'natoraj' imprinted thereon to the plaintiff for destruction by the plaintiff within a period of 30 days from today.61. i award token damages to the plaintiff and against ..... sale of the defendant is meager. not only that, cross examined on the sales, witness stated that apart from selling mathematical instrument boxes under the name 'natoraj', sale under other trade marks such as glory, cambridge, pagoda, bullet, lion, striker, sarothi and darbar was also effected by the defendant in respect of goods manufactured by it. witness stated that the sale ..... , rubbers, sharpeners etc. can be decided only after evidence is recorded, learned single judge restrained m/s. hindustan pencils pvt. ltd. i.e. the plaintiff from using the trade mark 'nataraj' in respect of mathematical instrument boxes.39. said decision has been affirmed by a division bench of this court in the decision reported as 2000 ptc 561, hindustan pencils ..... and is pursuing a remedy before a statutory authority, the same would have to be taken into consideration when a suit is filed.34. admittedly, defendant advertised in the trade mark journal only in december 1987. opposition was filed by the plaintiff immediately thereafter. opposition succeeded in the year 1991. suit was filed immediately thereafter.35. it cannot be said .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-27-2006
Reported in : LC2007(1)107
..... 26 of 2004 to amend the application for registration of the tindivanam party by deleting the names of the brothers of mr. b. mohammed yousuf.4) the trade marks act, 1999 and the trade marks rules, 2002 prescribe separate procedures for amendment of an application for registration as well as an amendment of the very certificate of registration. while section 22 provides ..... office to be the office of the registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of business in india of the registered proprietor of the trade mark is situate. in relation to a trade mark for which an application for registration is pending on the date of the notification of the said rules or is made after the date of ..... the leave of the court to be obtained before filing the rectification application, in cases where a civil suit for infringement is pending.(j) section 50 of the trade marks act, 1999 confers powers upon the registrar for variation or cancellation of registration of a registered user. section 57 confers concurrent jurisdiction upon the registrar and the intellectual ..... offices at delhi, tindivanam (villupuram district, tamilnadu) and kangayam (erode district, tamilnadu) respectively. 3. since the parties hereto have wielded against one another, almost all the weapons available under the trade marks act, 1999, such as (i) opposition for registration, (ii) assignment (iii) appeals and review petitions before the appellate board, (iv) rectification petition, (v) petition for prosecution (vi) .....Tag this Judgment!