INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI)
FRIDAY THIS THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2012
HON’BLE MS. S.USHA … VICE CHAIRMAN
HON’BLE SHRI V.RAVI … TECHNICAL MEMBER
M/s Khushiram Beharilal,
5190, Lahori Gate,
Delhi – 110 006. … Appellant/Applicant
(Represented by Advocates: Shri S.K. Bansal & Shri Saurabh Kapoor)
1.Ms Jaswant Sjngh, Balwant Singh,
Dhab Wasti Ram
Amritsar 143 006. … Respondent No.1/
2.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks,
Baudhik Sampada Bhavan,
Plot No.32, Sector 14,
New Delhi 110 075. … Respondent No. 2
(Represented by Advocates: Shri K.K. Arora & Shri Gaurav Arora)
ORDER (No. 126/2012)
HON’BLE SHRI. V. RAVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal made by the applicant/ appellant herein against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi dated 12.10.2006 refusing an application for the registration of the trade mark “TRAIN” brand for basmati rice under No. 609141 in Class 30 and allowing the opposition No. DEL-T-2040-56425 filed by the above said respondent.
2. The grounds on which the appellant has preferred the appeal is as briefly as follows:-
A. The Order of the Assistant Registrar is contrary to the law and the facts of the case. The Assistant Registrar has failed to appreciate that the documents filed /relied on by the opponents/respondents are forged and fabricated, inter-alia, on the following grounds :-
i) Exhibit 37 of the alleged invoices filed by the above respondent shows telephone number which are different from Exhibit 43 both filed before the Registrar. The discrepancy in the telephone number is for the same period in the alleged invoices for the same calendar year and therefore the documents filed by the respondent are doctored and forged.
ii) Similarly, in Exhibit No.5 (invoice dated 08.05.1985); exhibit No.14 (invoice dated 14.03.1987); Exhibit No.28 (invoice dated 16.08.1995); Exhibit No. 29 (invoice dated 23.08.1995) and Exhibit 30 (invoice dated 07.10.1997) the impugned trade mark TRAIN brand depicted on the bills do not correspond to the goods for which it is registered viz. rice. It is alleged that the respondents have imprinted the same on the impugned bills at one go without taking into consideration the description of the article/goods mentioned thereon. It is further alleged that all the invoices filed by the respondent were prepared prior to 1988 when the trade mark application was still pending and not registered.
iii) It is further alleged that the various invoices filed by the respondent before the Registrar from 1985 to 2002 is based on the signature of the same person ( at the place of the seller ) which is highly improbable and the impugned bills appear to have been prepared at the same time at one go. Further, for the period, 1995 -2002, trade mark application registered under No. 405933 is missing on the invoices.
iv) It is also alleged that the Rice License No., Sales Tax License and R.D. No. of the respondent and C.S.T. No. are varying on the impugned invoices.
v) The respondents are allegedly engaged in the impugned business of rice since 1978. However, the bills/invoices pertaining for the period 1985 – 1987 bears C.S.T.No. 01.07.1957 and STL No. dated 28.03.1949. From this, it is clear that the bills and invoices filed by the respondents are forged.
vi) It is further alleged that the sale transaction never occurred in as much as most of the invoices do not bear the signature of the buyer even though the signatures of the sellers is present
vii) It is further stated that the bills tendered do not bear the complete address of the purchaser.
B. The Assistant Registrar also erred in accepting the objections raised under Section 11 of the Act by the respondent and reached the wrong conclusion that the respondent herein is the prior user of the impugned trade mark without verifying the documents filed by the respondent which are forged and fabricated and cannot be relied on. The Assistant Registrar has failed to appreciate the special circumstances in favour of the applicant/appellant under Section 12 and he has further failed to give due consideration to the honest adoption and concurrent user of the applicant/appellants mark since April 1990. The Assistant Registrar was also wrong in rejecting the request in Form-16 dated 17.02.2006 filed by the applicant/appellant.. The applicant/appellant states that they qualify for registration of the mark and are also entitled to the benefit of the Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. It is further alleged that the order of the Assistant Registrar suffers from non-application of mind and he exercised his
discretion for irrelevant and extraneous consideration. In the interest of justice the present appeal be allowed and the
applicant /appellant pray that the order of the Assistant Registrar should be quashed/set aside and application No.609141 in class 30 should proceed to registration.
3. The case of the respondent is as follows:
1) One Shri Anil Kumar Mittal, Shri Arun Kumar Gupta and Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta trading as M/s Khushiram Behari Lal applied for the registration of a trade mark consisting of the word and device of ‘TRAIN’ in respect of rice in class 30 claiming the use of the said mark since August, 1991. The application was made on 11.10.1993 under No. 609141.
2) The said trade mark was advertised in trade mark Journal No. 1224 dated 01.06.2000 which was promptly opposed by the respondent/opponent herein.
3) After the filing of respective evidence by both the parties, the matter was listed for hearing on 07.06.2004 and it was adjourned from time to time and fixed for final hearing on 26.02.2006.
4) Just five days before the date of final hearing, a request on Form TM-16 for amending the use/user was suddenly made by the applicant/ appellant after a gap of almost six years from the date of publication of the impugned trade mark. Even this was filed by another entity M/s Khushiram Behari Lal Limited.
5) The respondent herein objected to the request of TM -16 in his comments dated 23.02.2006.
6) The hearing was consequently adjourned and finally heard on 03.04.2006. Both the parties have argued the matter before the Assistant Registrar.
7) The respondent had pleaded before the Assistant Registrar to reject the impugned application outright as the applicant had failed to establish entitlement to trade mark.
8) It is the case of the respondent that impugned trade mark “TRAIN” is identical to and in respect of same description of goods as the respondents registered the trade mark No.405 933 in Class 30.
9) The Respondent have also secured copyright registration for the artistic label comprising the word & device of the trade mark under No.A- 44877/84.
10) The Registrar had rightly refused the impugned trade mark as it is hit by Section 9 & 11 of the Act.
4. It is further stated that since the respondent’s right to the registered trade mark under No.405933 in Class 30 extends to all cognate Class of goods, the Registrar had rightly allowed the opposition and the identical trade mark under No. 609141 was correctly refused.
5. The respondent state that the present appeal is not maintainable. Since the appellant firm M/s Khushiram Behari Lal Limited had assigned all the rights relating to the trade mark and goodwill in favour of M/s Khushi Ram Behari Lal Limited by virtue of assignment dated 01.04.1996, the appellant/applicant has no locus standi to file this appeal as the impugned application under No.609141 no longer belongs to them.
6. Another preliminary objection is that the applicant/appellant havenot furnished a copy of the assignment agreement to the respondent for scrutiny.
7. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the filing of the different documents by different persons at different stages of these proceedings and making different and contradictory claims as detailed below:-
a) Application No.609141 dated 11.10.1993 was filed by ‘ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, ARUN KUMAR GUPTA and ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA trading as a partnership firm of “M/s KHUSHIRAM BEHARILAL” (as appeared in the Trade Marks Journal N0.1224 dated 1.06. 2000);
b) The counter-statement dated 19.06.2001 has been filed by ‘ANIL KUMAR MITTAL, ARUN KUMAR GUPTA and ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA’, trading as, being the partners of “
M/S KHUSHIRAM BEHARILAL (EXPORT DIVISION)”;
c) “KHUSHIRAM BEHARILAL (EXPORT DIVISION)” is alleged in turn to have been taken over by “M/S KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL LIMITED” by virtue of execution of an Agreement dated 01.04.1996, followed by a petition in Form TM-16 dated 30.11.1999 and as stated vide paragraph 4 of the aforesaid counter-statement as well as vide paragraph 2 of an affidavit dated 07.10.2002;
d) The Affidavit dated 07.10.2002 has been filed by “Mr. Anil Kumar Mittal” in support of application and in his capacity as a “Managing Director’ of ‘KRBL LIMITED’
8. A few export invoices filed by the applicant / appellant in respect of the impugned application are subsequent to the crucial date of filing i.e. 11.10.1993 and also by different firms and such evidence have been rightly declined and refused by the hearing officer.
9. No cogent documentary evidence has been filed by the appellant/applicant in support of the various exaggerated claim based on false and contradictory statement as to the user and proprietorship of the impugned identical trade mark at different stages of the opposition proceeding. The appellant/ applicant, therefore, lacks bonafide as also honesty and locus standi to file the present appeal.
10. Learned Asst. Registrar has rightly refused this impugned application in accordance with the various provisions of law and as per materials available on record.
11. In view of the foregoing, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
12. Since, the counsel for the respondent had earlier raised an objection as to one of us (Vice Chairman) hearing the matter, we had asked him whether this Board can hear the matter. The counsel, therefore, made an endorsement that he was willing to argue the matter before us.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides present and also perused various documents and the case laws relied on by the respective parties. Before giving our ruling it would be in the fitness of things to summarise the grounds on which the impugned trade mark ‘TRAIN’ under No. 609141 was refused by the Asst. Registrar.
14. In his order and decision dated 12th October, 2006, the Asst. Registrar has rejected a request by the Applicant/Appellant seeking ante dating of use of the impugned trade mark from 1991 to April 1990 mainly on the ground that the request was made belatedly six years after filing of the application. He further held that the claim of the proprietorship of the mark by the applicant/appellant to the impugned mark is false in as much as the respondent /opponents are already the proprietor of ‘TRAIN’ brand in Class 30 under No. 405933 for all kind of rice and who also hold copyright registration for the same. In emphatic terms, the Asst. Registrar concludes “The applicants mark is copied from the opponents registered trade mark. The claim to proprietorship made by the applicant is false and fraudulent with dishonest intention because a similar mark has already been used in relation to similar goods by the opponent.” The Assistant Registrar then analysed the objection under Section 11 of the Act and came to the conclusion that opponent / respondent are prior user of the identical mark for same goods and so the impugned mark is reasonably likely to cause confusion and deception amongst substantial number of persons and the objection under Section 11 was consequently upheld. He also rejected the applicants/ appellant claim under Section 12 and 18(1) and refused the impugned application.
15. The Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant relied on the following case laws in support of his argument.
1. “ Veerumal Praveen Kumar Vs Needle Industries (India ) Ltd & Another” – 2001 / PTC 889 (Del ) DB
2. “Corn Products Refining Co., Vs Shangrila Foods Products Ltd.” – (AIR 1960 SC 142 SCR 968)
3. “ Jain Electronics Vs Cobra Cables (P)., Ltd., Another” – ( IPAB -2005 (31) PTC 330)
4. “ Jain Electronics Vs Cobra Cables (P) Ltd. & others” — [ 2011 (45) PTC 52 (Del)
16. Opponent/respondent had relied on the following case laws during the arguments.
1. “National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Vs a) James Chadwick & Bros Ltd. & b) The Registrar of Trade Marks, Intervener”
(AIR 1953 SC 357)
2. “Jeevan Diesels & Electrical Ltd. Vs Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & another” – 2012 (1) Civil Court Cases 159, Delhi High Court
3. “Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs Chief Election Officer & Others ” — Supreme Court 2008 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 566:
4. “S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) Vs Jagannath (dead) — (Civil Appeal No.994 of 1972 – AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853.
5. “Gupta enterprise Vs Gupta Enterprise & another — AIR 1998 Delhi 232.
6. “Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs Reserve bank of India . (Gujarath) ”- Gujarat High Court – Special Civil Appln. No. 3011 of 2000.
7. “State Bank of Travancore Vs M/s Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd.” (SC) – 2011 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 869
8. “Ayodhya Bhagat and others Vs State Bank of Bihar and others” – 1974 AIR (SC) 1886
We shall deal with all these decisions later.
17. The function of a trade mark is to indicate the origin of the goods and distinguish it from others in the trade. Trade mark rights are the moral capital on which business is done. In the instant case, the finding of the Assistant Registrar has been attacked largely on the strength of dubious bills and invoices relied on in support by opponent/respondents in support of his prior registered trade mark. In the first instance, the question arises why the veracity of these documents relied on by the opponents is being raised at the appellate stage when the same was available and not challenged by the appellant/applicant in the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar. There is nothing in the record to show that this issue has been agitated before the Assistant Registrar it being the Court of first instance which could have gone into great details whether the documents relied on by the opponents are forged and fabricated. There are judgements both of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court to show that when a point is pressed and not dealt with, the remedy is to file a review. Nevertheless the applicant/appellant had succeeded in raising doubts which needs to be examined. The first of these relate to discrepancy in telephone number of the opponents bill for the same period. No conclusion based solely on this can be inferred as trading firms do have many lines to run their shops/business. The next point raised is that mark in the invoice do not relate to the goods for which it is registered. Some bills of the opponent refers to ‘husk’ containing the mark. ‘Husk” is an intermediate stage in the processing of rice and rice elements and one should not read too much is such minor deviation. After all merchants in the rice trade do not have same level of education as the legal community and in any event a serious analysis would indicate both are goods of the same description. Merely because some bills of the opponents are not rice specific, by itself it is not fatal to the opponents/respondent case. It is appropriate to consider the pattern of trade with particular reference to factors such as (use of the mark, the users, physical nature of the relevant goods, channel distribution, position in retail outlet, competitive leaning and market segmentation). We may usefully quote Jacob J in British Sugar
“When it comes to construing a word used in a trade mark specification, one is concerned with how the product is, as a practical matter, regarded for the purpose of trade. After all a trade mark specifications is concerned with use in trade.”
18. Even so, the applicants/ appellant have raised a number of other doubts about the credential of the opponents evidence which would lead one to believe that the impugned mark has been willfully refused by the Assistant Registrar. But that misses the basic flaw in the applicant’s case. No matter how much he may canvas, the fact of the matter is the opponents are already the registered proprietor of another trade mark under No.405933 in Class 30 in respect of rice since 1983. Even if disregard the non-allowance of TM-16 ante dating user from 1991 to April 1990, records indicate that it was opponent who first adopted the trade mark ‘TRAIN’ for basmati rice way back in 1983 which is at least seven years before the same mark for the same goods was adopted by the applicant. It is well settled law that if the applicant at the time of making an application had knowledge that the mark as applied for is similar to another mark in the register and that has already been used by another trader in relation to similar goods, then the claim of proprietorship by him is false and fraudulent. In this case, the applicant/appellant have failed to make out case for registration of the impugned mark. The Assistant Registrar had good reason to believe that the subsequent adoption and use and its application for registration for the same mark in respect of the same goods should not be allowed.
19. We shall now review the various decision relied on by the Applicant.
2001 PTC 889 (Del) (DB) __“Veerumal Praveen Kumar Vs Needle Industries (India) Ltd. & another”
This case was relied on to show that if the plaintiff allowed the defendant to expend money for considerable period in building up a business under a similar mark, he won’t be allowed to stop the business of the defendant by securing an injunction. Our attention was also drawn to para 24 where it was observed that there was nothing on record to show any reputation of the goods in India of the respondent while denying grant of interim relief to him. But this case can be easily distinguished as the impugned mark was promptly opposed by an earlier registered proprietor and the continued user after the appellant trade mark was published in the TM journal was at his own risk and the opponent cannot be faulted for this.
20. The next case relied on by the Appellant was “ Corn Products Refining Co. Vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd.” (AIR 1960 SC 142) to establish his reputation in which it was held “ The reputation with which we are concerned in the present case is the reputation of the trade mark and not the maker of the goods bearing the trade mark” and in Para 12 it is mentioned “ It would be wrong in this case to say that the appellant’ trade mark had not acquired any reputation amongst the general public and hence there is no reasonable apprehension of being confused or deceived by the use of the respondents proposed mark.” Here also, the fact is that the appellant adopted their mark in 1990, applied for in 1993 and was opposed after publication in 2000. Any reputation built up was open to challenge by a prior adopter and user and hence this case will not support the appellant.
21. Another case relied was 2011 (45) PTC 52 (Del.) _ “Jain Electronics Vs Cobra Cables (P) Ltd & Others” decided by IPAB where ‘the copies of invoices and the bills produced by the appellant do not reveal that the appellant had sold the voltage stabilizers under the brand ‘Cobra’ .- “Unless the trade with the description of goods or goods is identified by the trade mark mentioned in the bills or invoices, the relation between the two cannot be inferred and cannot be said to have been established”.
22. The above decision was carried in appeal in the Delhi HC 2011(45)PTC 52 (Del), wherein Justice Muralidhar in para 8 had concluded that “Respondent No. 1 is right in pointing out that the user had to be in relation to the goods and not merely the invoices”. We find that not all the bills of the opponents are questionable to conclude that original registration was itself obtained by fraud. In any event, we cannot embrace the argument that because of the original registration of the respondent’s trade mark was purportedly obtained by wrongful means, the appellant should be allowed to proceed to registration.
23. We shall now examine the case laws relied on by the respondent.
In AIR 953 SC 357 __ “National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Vs James Chadwick & bros Ltd. and Registrar of Trade Marks (intervenor) “. Our attention was invited to para 22 cited as below:-
“The principle of law applicable to such cases are well stated. The burden of proving that the trade mark which a person seeks to register is not likely to deceive or to cause confusion is upon the applicant. It is for him to satisfy the Registrar that his trade mark does not fall within the prohibition of Section 8 and therefore it should be registered. Moreover in deciding whether a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion that duty is not discharged by arriving at the result by merely comparing it with the trade mark which is already registered and whose proprietor is offering opposition to the registration of the mark. The real question to decide in such cases is to see as to how a purchaser, who must be looked upon as an average man of ordinary intelligence, would react to a particular trade mark, what association he would form by looking at the trade mark, and in what respect he would connect the trade mark with the goods which he would be purchasing. ”
There is no doubt in our mind that the adoption and use of the same mark for the same good will lead to total confusion in the market as affirmed by this decision.
24. The next case relied on by the respondent was “M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electronic Ltd. Vs Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Another, ” Delhi HC 2012(1) Civil Court cases 159 (Delhi) where it was held ‘A point urged but Court did not deal with same — Party to file an application immediately either for review of any other application to bring this on record before the trial Court – having not done so, the matter cannot be allowed to be raised before the appellate Court. We have already commented on this point elsewhere.
25. Another case relied on by the respondent was “Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs Chief Election Officers & Others” in Supreme Court 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Civil 566 in civil Appeal no. 4981 of 2006) where in para 14 it was observed as follows:-
“ In this connection we would like to say that there is a presumption in law that a judge deals with all the points which have been pressed before him, It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. Naturally a judge will deal only with the points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be presumed that the appellant gave up the other points, otherwise he would have dealt with them also. If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to him to file an application before the same learned Judge ( or Bench) that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the impugned judgment, it is open to the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders, including an order of review. However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below. The party who has this grievance must approach the same Court which passed the judgment, and urge that the other points were pressed but not dealt with”. This is precisely the point that has been troubling us and the respondent has cited the right authority to prove his point.
26. The respondent also relied on was “S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) Vs Jagannath (dead) & others (dead)” – AIR 1994 SC 853 where it was mentioned in para 7 of the Judgement as follows:-
The High Court in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes as engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law, are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely, We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”
27. The next case relied on by the respondent was M/s Gupta Enterprise Vs Gupta Enterprises & Another — AIR 1998 Delhi High Court 232 where the head note reads as follows:-
“ Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), S.21 —Opposition to registration —Locus standi – Application for registration of trade mark – Said trade mark alleged by opponent to be belonging to a partnership firm – Allegations by opponent that dissolution of said Firm took place and other partner surrendered his right in said firm in favour of opponent by an agreement – Failure on part of opponent to place said agreement before Registrar – Failure to prove by any document that he acquired exclusive proprietary right on said trade mark and to prove prior user – He had no locus standi to file opposition. ”
28. Another case relied on by the respondent was “Topline Shoes Ltd., Vs Reserve Bank of India, ” Gujarat HC 2002 (1) ISJ (Banking) 175 where it was held by the Learned Judge ” In view of the settled position of law, I am of the view that Mr. H.M.G. Murthy on behalf of petitioner company, who is neither having a Power of Attorney on behalf of the company nor authorized by any resolution of the company, has no right of audience even though he may be Managing Director of the company”.
29. The same principle (also relied on by Respondent ) was re-affirmed by the Apex Court in ‘ State Bank of Travancor Vs Kingston Computer (I) P. Ltd., (SC) 2011 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 869 head note of which is reproduced below: –
“Civil Procedure Code – Suit by a company – Who can file the suit on behalf of company – Suit for recovery of money filed by Plaintiff who claimed himself to be a Director of Company – No evidence produced that he was Director and no resolution of Board of Directors produced authorizing him to file the Suit – Suit filed on basis of authority letter issued by Chief Executive Officer of Company who had no such power – Suit rightly dismissed by trial Court .
30. The last case relied on was “Ajodhya Bhagat and others Vs State of Bihar and others” – 1974 AIR (SC) 1886 where it was held “ that the appellant cannot be allowed to raise the grounds in appeal, which were not taken in the petition.”
31. Obviously, the opponent/respondent are in the rice trade and have been alert enough to oppose the impugned mark at the first available opportunity. We agree with the applicant that many of the bill/invoices furnished by the opponent are prima facie suspicious. But how does that improve the prospect of securing the applicant the registration of the impugned mark?. This is not a case where the validity of the opponent’s registered trade mark is in issue. This Board is meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to us must come with a clean hand. The Assistant Registrar who heard the matter has come to the conclusion that the applicants are not and cannot be the proprietor of the impugned trade mark. He has also ruled that they are not entitled to the benefit Section 12. The respondent /opponent have adopted and registered the impugned mark prior in point of time. The Assistant Registrar has ruled that concurrent use of the mark would result in likelihood of confusion. It is not the case of the applicant that the first use in commerce of their mark is prior to the respondent/opponent. The Assistant Registrar has taken judicial notice that the impugned mark is confusingly similar and they do not qualify for registration under Section 12 of the Act. From the reading of the documents and pleading we believe that the applicant/appellant are making an all out eleventh hour efforts to leapfrog into the register through the appellate route having failed to make the cut before the Assistant Registrar. Adopting an identical mark for same goods in the same class is a high risk crime and even the best case scenario so ably put forward by the Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant at the hearing cannot save either the applicant or his application. Who can deny that there will be total confusion in the market if the applicants trade mark is allowed to co-exist on the register?. This Board will do its best to discourage illicit commerce by use of such tainted mark. Making concession under Section 12 which is essentially meant for a public purpose in respect of the impugned mark is totally unwarranted giving rise to public misgivings and would erode the legislative intent for which it was engrafted in the Act. On a totality of the case, we have no reasons to interfere with the findings of the Assistant Registrar. Once we come to this conclusion , all other incidental grounds vigorously raised both by the appellant (dubious supporting documents) and the respondent including (complicated ownership history of the appellant trade mark which passed through several hands) need not be gone into at length and in finer details to sort out unresolved conundrums and acknowledged disconnect as these do not materially alter the factual position of the case. This is the gist of what can be extrapolated from the voluminous case record. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the opponent /respondent herein.
(V. Ravi) (S. Usha)
Technical Member Vice Chairman
(Disclaimer: This order is being published for present information and should not be taken as a certified copy issued by the Board.)