//
you're reading...
legal issues

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD This application is being filed for rectification of the mark Bengal Lamps registered under No.895089 in class 11 in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant is present and has made his submissions. Neither the learned counsel for the respondent nor anyone on behalf of the respondent is present. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has also produced before us the history sheet of the mark impugned herein and it has been renewed upto 29.12.2009 and not thereafter. Perhaps this is the reason why there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Since they are no longer interested in continuing the registration of the impugned mark, ORA/9/2005/TM/KOL is allowed. The mark which has not been renewed shall stand removed from the register of Trade Marks.

Anna Salai near old Anand Theater, Chennai

Anna Salai near old Anand Theater, Chennai (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD

Guna Complex, Annexe-l, 2nd floor, 443, Anna  Salai, Teynampet,  Chennai 600 018

(Circuit Bench sitting at Kolkata)

 

ORA/9/2005/TM/KOL

TUESDAY, THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN    …     CHAIRMAN

HON’BLE Shri V. RAVI                                             …    TECHNICAL MEMBER

 

M/s Bengal Lamps Limited,

137, Prince Gulam Hussain Shah Road,

Kolkata – 700 032.                                                  … Applicant

(Represented by Advocate: Mr. C.R.Bakshi and Mr. P.K.Mitra)

Vs

M/s Prestige Lights Limited,

Dhalwala Industrial Area,

Muni Ki- Reti,

Rishikesh – 249 201.                                                            … Respondent

(None Represented)

ORDER (No.55/2012)

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairman:

This application is being filed for rectification of the mark Bengal Lamps registered under No.895089 in class 11 in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant is present and has made his submissions. Neither the learned counsel for the respondent nor anyone on behalf of the respondent is present.

2.         The learned counsel appearing for the applicant brought to our notice that in the suit filed by the applicant against the respondent (C.S.No.317/2004 of Hon’ble High Court) interim injunction was not given by the learned Single Judge. Against that an appeal was filed. The Division Bench granted injunction which is said to be still in force. The learned counsel has produced a copy of the said order. There the Division Bench has held that the applicant is the prior user/adoptor of the mark in relation to electric appliances and fittings and that the respondents have deceptively adopted the mark and that the respondent is using the logo created by the applicant.

3.         The learned counsel for the applicant has also produced before us the history sheet of the mark impugned herein and it has been renewed upto 29.12.2009 and not thereafter. Perhaps this is the reason why there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Since they are no longer interested in continuing the registration of the impugned mark, ORA/9/2005/TM/KOL is allowed. The mark which has not been renewed shall stand removed from the register of Trade Marks.

(V. RAVI)                                                                               (JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN)

TECHNICAL MEMBER                                                    CHAIRMAN

(Disclaimer: This order is being published for present information and should not be taken as a certified copy issued by the Board.)

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,883,996 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: