Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: intellectual property appellate board ipab Page 12 of about 797 results (0.130 seconds)

Oct 12 2012 (TRI)

V.M. Ganu Sah, Proprietor Vs. N. Sumesh and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

ORDER (No. 238/2012) S. USHA, VICE-CHAIRMAN 1. Original rectification application is for removal of the trade mark LAVANYA (label mark) under No. 1004039 in class 3 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. The applicants case is that they are one of the leading manufacturers of Talcum Powder and perfumes in powder form for application on fabrics. They honestly adopted and used the trade mark LAVANYA since 1977. They applied for and obtained registration of the trade mark LAVANYA under No. 405463B in class 3. 3. The mark was registered in the name of M/s. Hirusah Cosmetics (P) Ltd. and was subsequently assigned to the applicants herein in the year 2003. The recordal of assignment is pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks. 4. The applicants goods bearing the trade mark LAVANYA is known for its quality and standards. By efforts, promotional activities and advertisements they have build up a substantial reputation among the trade and public. The applicant is the first ado...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Kcj and Company Patparganj Industrial Area Delhi Vs. the Registra ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

ORDER (No. 239/2012) S. USHA, VICE-CHAIRMAN: 1. The instant matter was posted for maintainability of the appeal, as it was filed without condonation of delay fees. The matter was heard and a direction was given to the appellants to pay the fees within three weeks from the date of order. The date of the order was 27/07/2012. There was also a direction to the Registry to post the matter on 28/08/2012. Therefore the matter was listed on 28/08/2012. 2. On 28/08/2012, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there has been a delay in paying the condonation fees and that the delay may be condoned. The reason for delay was that an order was passed by the Trade Marks Registry restoring the application which was removed for non-payment of renewal fees. Now that the application has been restored, the appeal has become infructuous and the need to pay the condonation fee was not necessary and they do not intend to pursue the matter. 3. We have heard and considered the appellants counse...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2012 (TRI)

Andrews Ponnuraj Vairamani Vs. the Controller of Patents, Chennai

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

ORDER (No. 232 of 2012) S. USHA, VICE-CHAIRMAN: 1. The Registry of this Board has raised the issue of maintainability of the appeal under section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, against an order passed under section 77(1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970, being an order in a Review Petition. The appellant herein submitted his explanation that the patent application was refused under section 15 of the Act stating that the objection under section 10 of the Act was not complied with. The appellant preferred a review under section 77(1)(f) which was also dismissed. Therefore, the appeal may be taken on record treating the appeal against an order passed under section 15 read with section 77(1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970. 2. The matter was placed before the Board for deciding the issue of maintainability. The Board had appointed Shri S.P. Chokalingam, an Advocate as amicus curie to assist in deciding the issue as to whether an appeal under section 117A shall be maintainable against an order of re...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2012 (TRI)

M/S Punjab Sewing Machine Co. and Others Vs. M/S Satyapaul and Co., Pu ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT AHMEDABAD) ORDER (No. 233/2012) V. Ravi, Technical Member: 1. The applicants herein seek the removal of registered trade mark Nos. 314271 and. 431317 both in Class 7 of the respondent. The trade mark in question is ARUN. 2. The grounds for seeking cancellation of these two registered trade marks are summarised below:- The applicants are the proprietors of the trade mark ARUN in respect of Sewing Machines and parts thereof. This trade mark has been used by them since 1989. They have spent huge amount to promote the popularity of the said trade mark. The respondent had deliberately issued a Caution Notice on 17.07.2001 claiming to be the exclusive proprietor of the trade mark ARUN and the artistic work relating to the said trade mark under the Copyright Act, 1957. Pursuant thereto the applicants filed a Civil Suit under No. 4531 of 2001 against the respondent seeking permanent injunction and damages for illegal threat at the Ahmedabad City Civil Court. The respo...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 2012 (TRI)

Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Nungambakkam and Another Vs ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi) ORDER (No. 234/2012) S.Usha, Vice Chairman Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that the matter has been settled between the parties. It is submitted that the parties had entered into a compromise in CS(OS) No.1421 of 2005 on the file of Delhi High Court and the said suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. Both the counsel submit that in view of the settlement of dispute between the parties by way of compromise, the rectification applications may be dismissed as withdrawn. In this regard, memos have been filed by them. Accordingly, the rectification applications are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2012 (TRI)

B.V. Ilango Himachalapathy Vs. M/S Rank Xerox Limited and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

ORDER (No.229/2012) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: 1. These seven rectification petitions are in respect of the following marks:Trade MarkClassRegd.No.GoodsXEROX03254546Cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations.XEROX09217825Photographic, electrophotographic, photomechanical, electrostatographic and thermographic instruments and apparatus, display machines (for use in producing optical images), machines for producing a permanent visual record or copy, optical apparatus, photographic apparatus, films and parts and fittings of such machines and apparatus all included in class 9.XEROX01217823Films (sensitized); chemical products used in industry and plastics included in class 1.XEROX07217824Printing machines, plates and drums tehrefor; parts and fittings of the foregoing goods included in class 7.XEROX01155627Developers consisting of a mixture of electroscopic powder and granular material used for producing powder images in making electrophotographic copies, toners comprising lle...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2012 (TRI)

Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd, New Delhi and Others Vs. Usha Internati ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) ORDER (No. 231 of 2012) S. Usha, Vice Chairman: ORA/46/2004/TM/DEL, ORA/29/2006/TM/DEL AND ORA/128/2006/TM/DEL 1. Applications for removal of the trade marks registered under No.276104 in Class 7, No.427014 in Class 7 and 427015 in Class 7. The applicant was incorporated in 1963 as Sharma Pistons and Rings Ltd. which started its commercial production in 1967 and in May 1972 was reorganized under Shriram Group and the companys name was changed to Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. They have been since the year 1973 exclusively using the trade mark which are for the past 33 years with respect to pistons, piston pins, piston rings, engine valves and valve train components. They have been engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of engine components and also marketed their engine parts. They had been marketing pistons, piston rings, piston pins under the trade mark USHA and the USHA logo and the major user for the past 30 years in India and abroad...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2012 (TRI)

Mangalore Sathish Beedi Works Vs. M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works, My ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

ORDER (No.230/2012) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: 1. The appellants application is No. 516301 in Class 34 on 06.09.1989 for registration of label mark MANGALORE SATHISH BEEDIES comprising of a devise of a boy Sathish and numeral 37 claiming user from 01.09.1997. It was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal dated 22.01.1995. The first respondent Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works filed the notice of opposition. After considering the submissions of the rival parties and the evidence filed on both sides, the learned Assistant Registrar allowed the opposition and refused to grant registration by order dated 09.09.2009. The appellant is aggrieved not only because the grounds of opposition have been accepted but also because the matter which was heard on 19.11.2003 was finally ordered only in 2009 and this lapse of six long years from the date of hearing till the date of pronouncement of orders has caused grave miscarriage of justice. In the impugned order, the second respondent has sustained the ob...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Tholasi Jewellery Mart Vs. Thulasi Chandrasekar Jagadish and Anot ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Honble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2009 allowing the respondent herein to register the marks as amended by the said order by filing Form TM-16 with fresh label. 2. The Deputy Registrar held that the trade mark Tholasi having an ancestral origin both parties have the equal rights to use the mark and that in the interest of justice, the respondent must incorporate the coinage Ashoka Jewellery Hall along with the prominent feature Thulasi and Thulasis to eliminate confusion. The parties could use any colour of their choice. 3. Against the above order this appeal has been filed alleging that there was no implementation of the orders of the Honble High Court of Karnataka and that instead of holding the opposition proceedings in summary manner, a fresh trial was conducted; long adjournments were given; and the information from Commercial Tax Officer was summoned which the appellant had no opportunity to verify; and that whe...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2012 (TRI)

Mohammed Younus Shaikh Vs. Vidya Bhushan JaIn and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

ORDER (No. 221 of 2012) PRABHA SRIDEVAN, CHAIRMAN: 1. This Rectification Application was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2003 and later transferred to the Board. 2. The pleadings of the applicant are set out in brief. The mark which is sought to be removed is ELFY registered as No. 605340 in class 1. The applicant is established in Karachi, Pakistan. Since 1981, this mark has been used as a trade mark. The word ELFY has been used for industrial adhesives by the predecessors in interest of the petitioner and then by the petitioner. The petitioner claim to have built a reputation for superior quality adhesives and they have acquired transborder reputation and particularly in India. Along with the trade mark ELFY, the logo of a baby elephant hanging from an inverted arrow was also adopted. The word ELFY is a coined word from the word elephant. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of the mark in Pakistan with Registration No. 74814 in class 1 and No. 74815...

Tag this Judgment!


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