Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: intellectual property appellate board ipab Page 10 of about 797 results (0.177 seconds)

Mar 07 2013 (TRI)

Shri Raj Bahadur Gupta Proprietor and Another Vs. Registrar of Trade M ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA) MS. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman: The original appeal arises out of the order dated 07/10/2004 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata dismissing the opposition No. CAL 60117 and allowing application No. 678323 in class 14 to proceed to registration. 2. The appellant herein who was the opponent before the Registrar being aggrieved by the said order filed this instant appeal. 3. On completion of the pleadings, the appeal was listed for hearing. On the date of hearing, both the counsel withdrew their Vakalath. Meanwhile, one Mr. T.K. Jaha appeared on behalf of the respondents and filed the computer generated application Status Report dated 03/12/2012. From the report, it is seen that the impugned trade mark has not been renewed after 29/08/2005. It is also stated that the mark has been removed from the register and notified in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1442. 4. As the mark has been removed from the register, nothing survives in the appeal...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited Vs ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA) ORDER (No. 34 of 2013) MS. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman: This appeal arises out of the order dated 31/07/2006 allowing the application No. 1281174 to proceed for registration and dismissing the opposition No. CAL-206784 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. The opponent is the appellant herein and the applicant is the respondent. The respondent herein filed an application for registration of the label mark consisting of the letters MP (Mono) and the word IMUL in a triangular shape under application No. 1281174 in class 29 for the goods milk and other diary products on 28/04/2004, claiming user since 01/04/2001. The trade mark application was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 1329 Supplementary (1) dated 15/04/2005 at page No. 4031. 3. The registration of the trade mark was opposed by the appellant herein on the ground that the opponents i.e. the appellants are carrying on a well established business at Anand in Gujarat, manufacturing,...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 2013 (TRI)

Bayer Corporation Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Department ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(Order No.45 of 2013) Smt. Prabha Sridevan, Chairman Compulsory licence is not an unmentionable word. It is found in our Patents Act. Under a different name, it was there in the TRIPS (Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) too where it is called, Other use without authorization of the right holder. It has been there even in the Paris Convention of 1883 to prevent abuse which might result from the exercise of exclusive rights. The TRIPS Agreement did not give a carte blanche to the Members in the grant of compulsory licence but it hedged this other use with sufficient conditions and authorization of this use would be considered only on a case to case basis of individualness. This appeal challenges the compulsory licence ordered by the Controller-General. 2. Patent rights were created not in the interest of the inventor, but in the interest of the national economy, says the Report on the Revision of Patents Law by Shri Justice N.Rajagopala Ayyangar (in short, Ayyangar Re...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2013 (TRI)

Pharmacia and Upjohn Company Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH AT DELHI) ORDER (No. 25 of 2013) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: The appellant applied for grant of patent to the invention titled A Composition Comprising One to Three Bioactive Agents and a Vehicle Comprising a Modified and Unmodified Liquid Carrier. 2. According to the appellant at the time of invention, the state of the art did not know a pharmaceutical composition that provided sustained-release delivery of bioactive substance wherein the release performance is predictable and reproducible immediately after manufacture of the product and when the appellant surprisingly found that they had a composition which achieved just that and therefore they applied for patent application No.1466/DELNP/2005 on 12.4.2005. The appellant is aggrieved that by the impugned order, wherein the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs found that the invention was obvious and did not deserve the grant. 3. The facts preceding the rejection are as follows: The appellant made a request on 7.1...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2013 (TRI)

Relaxo Footwears Limited and Another Vs. Bata India Limited and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT SITTINGS AT DELHI) ORDER (No. 23 of 2013) MS. S. Usha, Vice Chairman ORA/275/2009/TM/KOL The applicant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The applicants and its sister concern, M/s.Relaxo Rubber Private Limited are together recognized as one of Indias leading footwear manufacturers. Their business has grown by leaps and bounds over the years. They are the proprietors of the trademark Relaxo in respect of footwears. The trade and public recognize the goods originating from the applicants source as goods of high quality and standard. 2. The applicants in addition to the adoption and use of the trademark Relaxo have also had the House Mark Relaxo and the applicants had bonafidely and honestly adopted the trademark Spark/Sparx. They had also adopted and used the trademarks such as, Spirit, Leatherite, Relaxo School Mate, Flite, Velo, Relaxo, Magma, Sprint, etc. They had been using the marks independently or in conjunction with or without their Ho...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2013 (TRI)

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Laboratoire Garnier and Cie and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: This Review Petition has been filed against the order dated 24/12/2003 by which the Miscellaneous Petition for dismissal of the main Rectification Application for non-compliance of provisions of S. 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act in short) was allowed and the rectification application was dismissed. This Review Petition has been filed on 03/10/2011. 2. The Learned Counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the original copy of the order dated 24/12/2010 was not served on them until they requested for a copy and it was made available only on 08/09/2011. This means, the Review Petition is in time. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the judgement in Jeet Biri Manufacturing Company Private Ltd. Vs. Pravin Kumar Singhal and The Registrar of Trade Marks case (MANU/IC/0020/2011) S. 124 does not insist on leave being obtained before the rectification application. Therefore, t...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2013 (TRI)

Enercon (India) Limited Vs. Aloys Wobben

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

ORDER (No.18 of 2013) HONBLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN, CHAIRMAN This application along with others between the same parties was heard by another Bench of the IPAB. Orders were reserved. The then Technical member retired before the orders were pronounced. So the cases were listed to be heard again. This application is for revocation of the patent No.198648 (Invention in short). 2. Mr. R. Parthasarathy appeared for the applicant and Mr. Praveen Anand represented the respondent. Both the learned counsel, besides arguing the matter at length, have also filed their written submissions on the preliminary issue as well as on merits. Preliminary objections by respondent Locus-standi 3. A Preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent herein questioning the locus-standi of the applicant to move the revocation application as a person interested under S.64 of the Patents Act, 1970.(Act in short) .This question has already been decided against the respondent by this Board in the cases ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2013 (TRI)

M/S. Pawan Kumar Sushil Kumar Agro(P) Ltd. Vs. M/S Shriniwas Jhawar an ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) ORDER (No. 4 of 2013) HONBLE SHRI V. RAVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER: Application is for removal of registered trade mark No. 1028224 in Class 30 of the respondent. The trade mark in question is PRT. The ground for rectification is summerised below: 2. (a) The applicants through its predecessors has been engaged in the business of milling, sorting, processing, preparing, refining, packaging, packing, trading and marketing all types and qualities of rice since 1992 and under the trade mark KRT since 1995. (b) For the first time in the last week of November 2010, the applicant came to know that the respondents are dealing with similar products and are using a deceptively similar trade mark/packaging PRT. Consequently the applicant filed a civil suit for passing off and infringement of his trade mark KRT under No. 1159069 and 973101 in Class 30 (as of 16th December, 2002 and 27th November, 2000 respectively) against the respondent in the Honble Delhi High Court in...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2013 (TRI)

M/S Ambika Exports |(P) Ltd. Vs. M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) ORDER (No. 3 of 2013) HONBLE SHRI V. RAVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER: By this common order, we are disposing of ORA/231-237/2010/TM/DEL along with the Miscellaneous Petition No. 53-59/2011- AND M.P.No. 236/2012 filed by the applicant seeking direction of the Board on the issues raised therein. Both the main matter and the MP were heard together. The applicant has sought removal of the following registered trade mark in the name of the respondent.Trade MarkAppln. No. ClassDate of FilingUser claimed from Rectification Application No.ClassAMBIKA3813501225.09.198101.04.1974ORA-23112AMBIKA LOGO13171493525.10.200404.01.2000ORA-23235AMBIKA BODY FIT [LABEL]12859572824.05.200401.04.2000ORA-23328AMBIKA6457711215.11.199425.07.1971ORA-23412AMBIKA LE RUN12913232821.06.2004`01.04.2000ORA-23528AMBI13171511225.10.200401.04.2000ORA-23612ANAMIKA (LOGO)13171501225.10.200401.04.1987ORA-237122. The case of the applicant is summarized below: a. It was incorporated on 8th November 1...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2012 (TRI)

V.S. Devarajan Vs. Hyderabad Industries Limited Sanathnagar

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA) ORDER (No. 272 of 2012) SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN, CHAIRMAN: This application is for revocation of Patent No. 188942 filed on 26/04/1996 and the publication of the patent was on 30/11/2002. The patent has not been renewed after 2008. This is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent also. Certified copy of the extract from the Controller Generals office shows that the patent has ceased to exist on 28/04/2008. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that they have filed an application for restoration. The restoration of the lapsed patent shall be done in accordance with S.60 of the Patents Act, 1970 (Chapter XI). The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not arguing on the grounds for revocation of the patent which has ceased to exist. The ORA/3/2011/PT/KOL is closed. The Miscellaneous Petition No. 48/2012 for early hearing is disposed of. We make it clear that the Controller shall not pass any order on the lapsed pate...

Tag this Judgment!


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