//
archives

ballard estate

This tag is associated with 2 posts

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD=This is an appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks whereby the application for registration of Trade Mark “OFLEX” has been refused.=After having perused the documents, we are in agreement with the observation made by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks that the opponents and applicant both have filed half hearted evidences not bothering seriously, the concern. But certainly the onus is more upon applicants to show that they have right of registration and hence applicants stand to loose if evidence of applicant does not over weigh against evidence of opponents, the registered owner of conflicting mark. The appellant has failed to establish it use of the mark since 4.1.2000. The appellant has on the basis of available documents on our record has proved the user only since 9.4.2002. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks.

Mr. Vikash Rajgarhia v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Limited – OA/51/2006/TM/AMD [2008] INIPAB 2 (19 March 2008) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-1, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018   (Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad)   OA/51/2006/TM/AMD     WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008       Hon’ble Shri Z.S. Negi … Vice-Chairman … Continue reading

Bombay stamp act whether it is lease or license ?=both the parties are adidem that the instruments do not create immediate / present demise, it is not possible to hold that the agreements in question are camouflage as contended by Mr. Sonpal. Since the instrumentality of the State of Maharashtra has prepared the agreements in printed format, which have to be signed by every bidder, in the facts of this case, it is not possible to hold that the agreement is a camouflage. The agreement is titled as Agreement To Lease. However the petitioners have been referred to as licensee in the agreements. What is created in favour of the petitioners is merely a license with an Agreement to create lease in future dependent upon the contingencies as indicated in the agreement. The contingency is to properly construct a building within stipulated time and if this is not done, option is left with CIDCO either to pardon the default and extend time or to resume the land. Though possession has been handed over to the petitioners, the said handing over of the possession is not of legal possession and in law CIDCO continues to be in exclusive possession of the property. Possession handed over to the petitioners is merely that of licensees. In my opinion agreements in the present case are Agreements To Lease without creation of present demise coupled with immediate license to enter the land and carry on construction. In the peculiar facts of this case where one of the party is CIDCO, I am inclined to take a view that the document in question does – 53 – 3-wp-4866-2002-group not create a present demise and therefore, is not chargeable with advolorum stamp duty which is required to be levied on the Lease as contemplated by Article 36

– 1 – 3-wp-4866-2002-group srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6623 OF 2007 M/s. Jasubhai Business Services ] Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Excel Realtors Limited) ] a private limited company incorporated ] under the Companies Act, 1956 having its ] registered office at 26, Maker Chambers VI, ] … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,199 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