family settlement

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD- On perusal of the records that the PVG label mark has been registered in the name of the applicants as of 24.12.1998 for the goods falling in class 7. The respondent who was working as the manager of the company and the applicant’s husband had the knowledge of the applicants use and registration. The respondent adoption cannot be said to be bonafide. When the adoption is dishonest the respondent cannot be the proprietor of the trade mark. The registration is therefore in contravention of Section 18 of the Act. 11. When the registration is obtained by suppression of material fact from the notice of the Registrar, the entry is deemed to be an entry made without sufficient cause. The respondent has falsely claimed to be the proprietor of the trade mark. 12. The authorities who are the custodian of register are to be more cautious while granting registration. They are to look into their records before the registration is granted. We find an identical trade mark for identical goods are also registered in the year 1998, the present impugned application has been filed in the year 2005. If the officer had been more careful this impugned mark would not have been registered. 13. The impugned trade mark therefore deserves to be expunged. Consequently, the application is allowed with a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove/cancel the trade mark registered under No.1384443 in class 7. No order as to costs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYAPPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   ORA/93/2009/TM/CH FRIDAY, THIS THE  3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Ms. S. Usha                                                     …  Vice-Chairman Hon’ble Shri. V. Ravi                                                    …  Technical Member   D.P. Parimala, 471, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore – 641 004.                                                        … Applicant   (Represented by Shri … Continue reading →