//
archives

deputy registrar

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Application for registration of trade mark “SHARP” was refused after hearing objection , the application was rejected Hence the appeal – Ans. :- Dismissed = 1. Sunil Grover, Trading as Analog Systems, A-10, Ranjit Nagar, Community Centre, Behind Satyam Cinema, New Delhi 100 008. … Application (Represented by Advocate: Shri Mr. M.K. Miglani) 1. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation), 22-22 Nagaike-Cho-Abeno-Ku, 545 Osaka, Japan (Add. For service in India Mohan Associates, Ceebros Building,D-4, III Floor, Cenetaph Road, Teynampet-18) 2. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trade Marks Registry, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110 020. … Respondents (Represented by Advocate: Shri Arun C. Mohan) published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/206-2013.htm

Application for registration of trade mark “SHARP” was refused after hearing objection , the application was rejected Hence the appeal –  The appellant are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing TV Booster, antenna for TV,  two in one and converters for the last many years. In 1974, they honestly and bonafidely adopted a … Continue reading

whether the competing goods are different and whether the Registrar was right in refusing the appellant’s opposition. In deciding on this point the well settled law is to consider the nature of goods; its characteristic; its origin; the purpose; whether it is produced usually by one and the same manufacturer or distributed by the same wholesale houses; whether they are sold in the same shop over the same counter; during the same season and to the same class or classes of customers; whether they are regarded as belonging to the same trade etc. The Act uses the expression ”Similarity of goods or services” [S.11(a)]. The essential requirement is that there should be such similarity resulting in the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The question whether or not two sets of goods are of the same description is a question of fact and in deciding that question “one has to look at the trade” and must look at it from a practical business and commercial point of view. It is recognized that classification of goods and services is only an enabling tool for seeking registration and we can find many goods of same description in different classes as also goods of different description in the same class. In the instant case the competing marks are identical i.e. SONA. The rival goods are used by the common man. The perception of the mark in the mind of average consumer plays a decisive role. Here the appellant coined, adopted and started using SONA from 1975. The respondent was born some ten years later. Here it is layperson – illiterate, semi-literate, housewives, servants who will be buying both goods. Confusion as to the trade source is therefore inevitable. When the rival goods are used through the same trade channel and sold in the same shop over the same counter, many customers will wonder whether it might not be the case that the two products come from the same source. There is a real tangible danger if the impugned trade mark is put on the Register. The respondent started the use of the impugned trade mark in 1985 with an annual turnover of Rs.36,000/-. Upto 1995 their annual turnover was always less than one lakh rupees. On the other hand even before the respondent’s trade mark was born in 1985, the appellant annual turnover had reached Rs.36.0 lakhs. No wonder the appellant are greatly exercised. He is expanding and diversifying his business. The appellant have thus established by evidence filed before the Registrar and beyond any reasonable doubt, the civil standard of proof required to show that potential customers for the appellant’s goods will be misled into purchasing the respondent’s goods. In determining the likelihood of confusion because of similarity of goods, we are concerned with ordinary practical business probabilities having regard to all the circumstances. There is great affinity between the competing goods here. Since the practice of Registry is not to permit registration for a broad range of goods in a class, it then becomes its duty to ensure correct application of law in respect of subsequent identical mark for cognate class of goods. The Deputy Registrar had erred in applying the wrong test and permitted the registration of the impugned trade mark. His ruling that the rival goods are totally dim-similar is misconceived as the class of customers has been ignored. Similarity and confusion as to origin both largely are matters of fact and impression. The appellant have built a reasonable reputation for their trade mark SONA ten years before the respondent. In deciding such cases one has to think like a common man. That is the only correct test that can be sustained. The supreme test is the likely public confusion bench marking the level of education, class of customers at ground zero. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar permitting registration of the impugned trade mark. OA/54/2005/TM/KOL is consequently allowed and the impugned trade mark “SONA” in class 30 is refused registration. There is no order as to costs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   (Circuit Bench Sitting at Kolkata)   OA/54/2005/TM/KOL FRIDAY, THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2012     HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN          … CHAIRMAN HON’BLE SHRI V. RAVI                                                   … TECHNICAL MEMBER   M/s Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd., 746, Industrial Area, Phase-11, … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD = unauthorized person taken away the bundle and records from the file= In July 2010, when the appellant checked the status of the application under No. 1635094 in the Registry’s website, they came to know that the application was withdrawn. On 13.07.2010, the appellant’s attorney filed an application for physical inspection. As the file was not traceable immediately, inspection of the physical file was conducted in October, 2010. On inspection, the attorney came to know that the application was examined on 08.09.2008 and on 05.11.2008 an examination report was sent to Ranjan Narula Associates. On 26.10.2009, one Gauri Kumar, Advocate appeared before the Examiner for the hearing fixed on that date and withdrew the application for registration. It was also revealed from the inspection that various documents namely, the Power of Attorney on TM-48, the Form TM-16 etc., sent by the present attorney were not available in the file.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018                                                                                                                             ***** (Circuit Bench at Delhi)   OA/76/2011/TM/DEL   WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012   HON’BLE MS. S. USHA                                                          … VICE-CHAIRMAN HON’BLE Shri V. RAVI                                                          … TECHNICAL MEMBER Emerson Network Power – Embedded Computing, Inc. 2900 South Diablo … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,848,830 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com