advocatemmmohan
Health
“AYUR” is a generic word and no one can claim exclusive right to the said word and that there is no evidence of confusion. No one will mistake “AYUR” and “AYURTHEERAM” as identical or even deceptively similar. The letter enclosing the “Green Leaf” classification to the respondent shows that Ayurveda has been elevated as USP of Kerala Tourism. The respondent is a full-fledged resort in the Kerala backwaters. They claim to have therapy rooms. The respondent has shown in its balance sheet expenditure under the head “Ayurvedic expenses” or “Ayurvedic Centre” expenses. In the balance sheet as on 31.3.2002, secured loan on the landed property at Komarakom Village is shown According to tradition, Ayurveda is the “science of life”. But we have decided today that the appellants herein is not entitled to claim proprietorship over the mark “AYUR” and we have ordered removal of the mark in TRA/138/2004/TM/DEL, TRA/139/2004/TM/DEL and TRA/116 to 118/2004/TM/DEL. We have held that “AYUR” is generic which has a dictionary meaning and is not an invented word and the appellant cannot appropriate “AYUR” excluding everyone else from using it legally as a mark. In view of the above and the decision of the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court we will not interfere with the impugned order. 15. Appeal OA/15/TM/CH/2010 is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Miscellaneous Petition No.32/2010 is dismissed as infructuous.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 M.P.No.32/2010 in OA/15/2010/TM/CH AND OA/15/2010/TM/CH FRIDAY, THIS THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2012 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan … Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha … Vice-Chairman M/s. Three-N-Products Pvt. Ltd. 2/12 West Patel Nagar New Delhi-110008. … Appellant … Continue reading
Can any one claim that “AYUR” is an invented word? Can anyone claim that Ayur (short A) differs from Ayur (long A)? Can anyone claim that in India the home of Ayurveda, he alone can use Ayur? (Charaka and Susruta the fathers of Ayurveda must be looking sadly from wherever they are). Can any one claim such a monopoly over the letters A, Y and U that even the word “MAYUR” gets thrown over? The answer should be No. But the respondent would like to hear a Yes.= Finally we are of the opinion that – (a) The respondent has admitted “AYUR” means ‘life’. Therefore their contention that “AYUR” is an invented word is unacceptable; (b) The respondent claims that the mark is used for non-ayurvedic product. If so, the use of “AYUR” is deceptive since the ordinary consumer will think it is an ayurvedic product; (c) Contrarily the respondent also claims it is rooting their products in Ayurveda. If so, use of the mark is descriptive and cannot be accepted; (d) “AYU” and “AYUR” are words belonging to the public domain; no one can appropriate it exclusively; (e) Admittedly, “AYUR” means life and the words are associated in the public consciousness with ‘Ayurveda’ and ‘healthy life’ and no one can appropriate it to oneself; (f) The respondent has not proved that the mark has acquired distinctiveness and in fact such a mark can never acquire distinctiveness. It is like using the mark “Soap” for soap; (g) The applicant on the other hand has produced evidence to show that “AYUR” means ‘Ayurveda’ to the consumers or it means ‘life’ or ‘ayurvedic’ product, so the mark is likely to cause confusion and deception; (h) The respondent has stated before the English Court in the decision of the Cancellation Division, that ‘Ayurveda’ means ‘science of life’. Therefore the respondent has misled the Registrar. This mark shall not remain on the Register; (i). The mark cannot pass either the test of Section 11 nor the test of Section 9 of the Act; and (j) Public interest would be harmed if this mark remains in the register thereby preventing other persons in our country access to a common Indian word denoting an ancient system of medicine. 23. For all these reasons, the marks bearing Nos.421919 in Class 3, 504095 in Class 5, 691956 in Class 3, 691957 in Class 3 and 691958 in Class 3 are removed. The applications TRA/138/2004/TM/DEL (CO No.6/2003), TRA/139/2004/TM/DEL (CO No.8/2003), TRA/116 to 118/2004/TM/DEL (CO No.9 to 11/2003) are allowed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- in aggregate, that is, @ Rs.20,000 for each of the rectification petition.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 (CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) TRA/138/2004/TM/DEL (CO No.6/2003) TRA/139/2004/TM/DEL (CO No.8/2003) TRA/116 TO 118/2004/TM/DEL (CO No.9 to 11/2003) FRIDAY, THIS THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2012 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan … Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha … Vice-Chairman Hindustan Unilever Limited … Continue reading
Medical negligence- when the complainant went for abdominal treatment, the doctor while injecting saline through intravenous transfusion, she damaged the vain of the complainant which resulted into septic, and finally removal of her fore arm and as such damage awarded due to the fault of doctor. both forms confirmed and their lord ships dismissed this revision of the doctor=2. Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that her condition was due to the damage to the vain and resultant septicemia caused by negligence in the process of intravenous transfusion of saline and blood administered to the Complainant during her treatment by the revision petitioner. The complaint petition gives details of not only the medical consequences of the alleged negligence, but also resultant financial cost to the Complainant. For this, a total compensation of Rs.3.46 lakhs, was sought against which Rs.2.75 lakhs has been awarded. “Here in the present case, we also find that the chain of incident and circumstances under which the complication took place to the patient started under the care of appellant-doctor, on the basis of which there is only one inference of negligence of the appellant is drawn. Therefore, the respondent do not require to provide any further opinion of expert on the subject. The Complainant has succeeded to make out a case of negligence whereas the appellant failed to prove her innocence.”
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4094 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 18.8.2011 in First Appeal No.921/2006 of the State Commission, Bihar) Dr. Amita Srivastava W/o Dr. B.K.Srivastava Mohalla: Dahiyawan District Saran at Chapra, Bihar ……….Petitioner Versus Smt. Poonam Devi W/o Dev Nath Prasad Village Rampur, District Saran at Chapra, Bihar ………Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. … Continue reading
An Ayurveda doctor treated the patient in allopathic stream and caused the death of patient at the hands of compound er who administered salain bottle when the patient received Heart Attact.directed to pay compensation of Rs.7 lakhs.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 887 OF 2012 WITH I.A./1/2012(For stay) (Against the order dated 24-11-2011 in Appeal No. A/11/454 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Dr. R.R. Singh AVV (BOM) Regn. No. 12089 Varadan Clinic Near Pal School, Hanuman Nagar Akruli Road, Kandivali, East Mumbai – 4001010 Mumbai, Maharashtra …….. Petitioner (s) Vs. Pratibha P. Gamre Jeemala Chawl Hanuman Nagar Opp. … Continue reading
Medical negligence on the part of the Hospital and concerned doctor , in providing external cardiac pacing and ventilatory support to the heart patient within 4 minutes after the failure of the insertion of stunt operation- amounts to medical negligence , the Hospital and doctor both are liable to pay compensation of 2 lakhs with 10% interest as they charged the patient for operation.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 8-8-2006 in Complaint Case No.C-268 of 1995 of the State Commission, Delhi) 1. Shri S. C. Mathur R/o 182, Ashoka Enclave-I Faridabad– 121 003 2. Ms. Shipra Mathur R/o 46, Ashoka Enclave-I Faridabad- 121 003 3. Shri Puneet Mathur R/o 182, Ashoka Enclave-I Faridabad- 121003 ……….Appellants Versus 1. Director, All India Institute of Medical … Continue reading
Dowry death – set ablaze The demand of dowry raised by the accused persons later for television and cooler could not be satisfied by the family of the deceased for financial limitations upon the death of father of the deceased. As a result, the deceased was treated with cruelty and physical assault. In fact, it ultimately led to her brutal murder at the hands of the husband and his family members. Not only this, the conduct of the accused prior to and immediately after the occurrence clearly shows that they were not innocent. Otherwise, there was no occasion for them to abscond after the body of the deceased was handed over to her relations. These circumstances, along with the circumstances stated by the Trial Court, are inconsistent with their innocence and consistent only with hypothesis that they had killed the deceased by setting her on fire. No explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation, has been rendered by the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the contrary, the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and explanations given by the defence for accused Mukesh having suffered injuries on his body are patently false and not worthy of credence.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.851 OF 2010 Rajesh Bhatnagar … Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2010 Mukesh Bhatnagar … Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Learned Second … Continue reading
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD The appellant opposed the registration of the mark LIVOSIN claiming user from 4-4-1974under No 478108. This was advertised before acceptance on 16.10.1994, in class 5 for medicinal preparation. The opposition was disallowed. 2. The appellants are the proprietors of the mark LIVOGEN as of 14-12-1942. They claim that the impugned mark is identical and deceptively similar to theirs. According to them the adoption of the mark was dishonest and it should not be allowed to be registered. 14. Almost all the decisions submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent related to medicinal preparations. The Court had considered the marks to see if there is likelihood of confusion. For liver preparation there are many medicinal products which start with the drug “LIV” and so on and therefore as a medicinal preparation it is also common for the trade to have a common suffix or prefix. The differing suffixes ‘SIN’ or ‘GEN’ are not similar and the Registrar was of the opinion that the impression created on the whole by the two marks would not cause confusion. We do not think that this decision is arbitrary or totally unacceptable warranting interference. We are also of the view that the two marks are not likely to cause confusion or deception.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 CIRCUIT SITTING AT KOLKATA M.P. No.94/2007 in TA/7/2005/TM/KOL AND TA/7/2005/TM/KOL (TMA/11/1997) FRIDAY, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2012 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan … Chairman Hon’ble Shri V. Ravi … Technical Member (Trade Marks) … Continue reading
No murder = The absence of any injury on any vital part and particularly the absence of external injury on the skull clearly show that the accused had not intended to cause the death of the deceased nor caused any bodily injury as was likely to cause death. It is noteworthy that the Trial court had placed heavy reliance upon the presence of blood clots below the scalp and inside the middle portion of the skull of the deceased to come to the conclusion that the death may have been caused by the injuries on the head which is a vital part of the body. The Trial Court obviously failed to note that there was no external injury reported by the doctor on any part of the head. If the respondents really intended to commit the murder of the deceased and if they were armed with weapons like Lathis and Dhariyas of which the latter is a sharp-edged weapon, it is difficult to appreciate why they would not have attacked any vital part of his body. The absence of any injury on any vital part and particularly the absence of external injury on the skull clearly show that the accused had not intended to cause the death of the deceased nor caused any bodily injury as was likely to cause death. 8. It is also difficult to attribute any knowledge to the respondents that the injuries inflicted by them were likely to cause death, the same being simple in nature. Even the doctor who conducted the post-mortem did not certify the injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. Such being the state of evidence, the High Court was, in our view, justified in allowing the appeal of the respondents in part and acquitting them of the charge of the murder while maintaining their conviction for the remaining offences with which they were charged. Even on the question of sentence, we do not see any compelling reason to interfere. The incident in question is more than 12 years old. The respondents have already suffered incarceration for four years which should suffice having regard to the totality of the circumstances in which the incident in question appears to have taken place. 9. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.316 OF 2005 State of Rajasthan …Appellant Versus Mohan Lal & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal by special leave assails the correctness of the judgmentand … Continue reading
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI =Case of the complainant is that from his personal experience and the circumstances, the complainant holds the firm opinion that death of his wife had occurred due to gross negligence of the opposite party at the time of operation, as also at the pre-operational stage because before the operation of the deceased, no thorough check-up was done to determine the general health status of the patient; no specialist doctor was present to give anaesthesia nor anybody remained present during the operation; the arrangement of blood was also not done before starting the operation and that the opposite party – doctor had switched over to conventional cholecystectomy procedure without obtaining any specific consent for such a procedure because initially the patient was booked for laparoscopic procedure. It is also alleged by the complainant that the cause of the death given by the opposite party in the treatment chart “cardiac arrest” was false and fabricated. Complainant claims to have suffered irreparable loss on account of the untimely death of his beloved wife besides mental agony and sorrow and also monetary loss due to depreviation of the income which the wife of the complainant would have generated from her salary as she was employed as a head of government primary school at a salary of about Rs.12,000/- per month. Complainant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and sorrow and Rs.5,82,739/- towards the loss of income from the salary of his wife.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 10.11.2005 in Original Complaint Case No. 51 of 2000 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Chandigarh) Suresha Nanda ……… Appellant s/o Sh. Nitya Nand r/o Main Bazar, Una, Himachal Pradesh Versus Dr. Anoop Kumar …….. Respondent M.S., MCH (Urology) Consultant in Urology Modern Hospital, Hoshiarpur, … Continue reading
AUSTRALIAN TRADE MARK OFFICE= SIMILAR GOODS – TRADE MARKS DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR
TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS Re: Trade mark application number 1362576(5) – LIV.52– in the name of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. DELEGATE: Iain Thompson REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Cathryn Warburton of Acacia Law DECISION: 2012 ATMO 9 s33 proceedings – s44 ground for rejection – similar goods – … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 