//
archives

salai

This tag is associated with 8 posts

patent right granted was revoked = “Method for monitoring a Sensor”-” The Wind Turbine Components and Operation”=The applicant seeks revocation of the Patent No: 203552 for an Invention titled” Method for monitoring a Sensor.”= from the 1990s in India and elsewhere in the world there has been a spurt in wind energy activity. The 1990s were undoubtedly years of considerable change. The rated capacity of wind turbines was increasing rapidly, as was the size of wind farms. Wind speed cannot be controlled. It increases or decreases at will. That is why prediction of the wind speed and monitoring is required. We have already seen that ‘041 tells us that the blade pitch angle was known to be one of the parameters. If the pitch angle is not variable, then of course the anemometer can not use it to monitor the wind flow, But if the pitch angle can be varied and the wind speed is very high , what will the person skilled in the art who has common sense do? She will use the other known parameter that is the blade pitch angle and feather the blades. The answer it appears “is blowing’ in the wind”, it is obvious. 52. The proposed claim also speaks of detecting the flow speed, comparing it with at least one operating parameter and of the sequence the parameters. -Further all the features of the proposed claims are obvious as seen above. In the result, the patent No.IN203552 is revoked.

published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/123-2013.htm INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 * * * * * * (CIRCUIT BENCH AT DELHI)   ORA/08/2009/PT/CH AND Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 7/2010, 31/2010, 51/2011, 86/2012, 142/2012 & 143/2012 in ORA/08/2009/PT/CH   WEDNESDAY THIS THE  12TH  DAY OF JUNE, 2013 Hon’ble Smt. Justice … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD 3. The appellant is the proprietor of the trade mark “Kaveri Pipes” under No. 722253 in class 17 in respect of HDPE pipes. They have been in the business of manufacturing of HDPE pipes for 20 years. The mark has been used by the appellant since 20.2.1985 in respect of the said goods. The mark has acquired a good reputation and has come to be associated with the appellant’s goods. According to the appellant the use of the mark Ganga Kaveri by the respondent is likely to cause confusion. The goods are identical, and there is bound to be deception and confusion. The adoption of the impugned mark is malafide and intended to slice away the profits of the appellant. On these and other grounds the appellant opposed the registration. -14. We therefore allow the appeal OA/18/2010/TM/CH, set aside the order dated 6.7.2009 and consequently direct the Registrar to remove the mark “Ganga Kaveri”, bearing No.1315836 in Class 17. The respondent shall surrender the certificate. Miscellaneous Petition No.49/2010 is closed.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   M.P. No.49/2010 in OA/18/2010/TM/CH AND OA/18/2010/TM/CH    FRIDAY, THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2012     Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                          …   Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                                              …  Vice-Chairman     M/s. Kaveri Piping Sytems Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD This application is being filed for rectification of the mark Bengal Lamps registered under No.895089 in class 11 in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant is present and has made his submissions. Neither the learned counsel for the respondent nor anyone on behalf of the respondent is present. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has also produced before us the history sheet of the mark impugned herein and it has been renewed upto 29.12.2009 and not thereafter. Perhaps this is the reason why there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Since they are no longer interested in continuing the registration of the impugned mark, ORA/9/2005/TM/KOL is allowed. The mark which has not been renewed shall stand removed from the register of Trade Marks.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-l, 2nd floor, 443, Anna  Salai, Teynampet,  Chennai 600 018 (Circuit Bench sitting at Kolkata)   ORA/9/2005/TM/KOL TUESDAY, THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012 HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN    …     CHAIRMAN HON’BLE Shri V. RAVI                                             …    TECHNICAL MEMBER   M/s Bengal Lamps Limited, 137, Prince Gulam Hussain Shah Road, … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD -As the matters pertain to the registration of the trade mark “MANISH’S” and the issues involved in all the four matters and the parties concerned are one and the same a common order is being passed in all the four matters.-The Registrar has erroneously held that the onus of establishing confusion is always on the opponent/appellant, which is totally contradictory to the well settled proposition of law. In AIR 1953 SC 357 – National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram, Appellants Vs. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd., Respondent – The Registrar of Trade Marks, Intervener, it was held at para 22 – “The principles of law applicable to such cases are well-settled. 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 S.8 and therefore it should be registered….” 32. Based on the above observation, the onus is cast on the respondent to satisfy the Registrar that the grant of registration would not cause confusion among the public. The other findings of the Registrar as to use, rejection of the objection under Section 12 and 18(1) and others are set aside. 33. For the reasons stated above, we hold that – (a) the original rectification application Nos.ORA/170/2009/TM/CH, ORA/171/2009/TM/CH and ORA/191/2009/TM/CH are allowed since the respondent has not proved user as claimed in their application for registration; (b) the original appeal No.OA/41/2008/TM/CH is also allowed as the respondent has not proved the claim of use; (c) the Registrar of Trade Marks is therefore directed to remove/cancel the trade mark “MANISH’S” registered under Nos.1218966 in Class 31, 1218967 in Class 30 and 1249101 in Class 29 from the register and the application No.810381 in Class 30 a label mark be refused registration. 34. The original rectification applications and the original appeal are ordered accordingly with costs of Rs.5,000/- each. The Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018     M.P.No.132/2011 in ORA/170/2009/TM/CH AND ORA/170/2009/TM/CH, M.P. No.131/2011 in ORA/171/2009/TM/CH AND ORA/171/2009/TM/CH, M.P. No.133/2011 in ORA/191/2009/TM/CH AND ORA/191/2009/TM/CH          FRIDAY, THIS THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                    …  Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                               … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD The appellant’s case is that they are an established business dealing and manufacturing lime. They have been openly using the word Chamak and have applied for registration on 16.4.93 and the application is pending. The mark applied for by the appellant and the impugned mark are identical. The impugned mark is identical, it is neither adopted to distinguish nor is it capable of distinguishing the goods. Therefore they opposed the registration. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the word Chamak was directly descriptive of the goods, and the respondent has not proved user. The appellant relied on AIR 1953 SC 357 – National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Vs. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. “The principles of law applicable to such cases are well settled. 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 Sec.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 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.”

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD   Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 (CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT AHMEDABAD)    M.P. 65 OF 2010 IN TA/283/2004/TM/AMD  and  TA/283/2004/TM/AMD  M.P. 66 OF 2010 IN TA/284/2004/TM/AMD    and  TA/284/2004/TM/AMD FRIDAY, THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                                …Chairman       Hon’ble  Ms. S. Usha        … Continue reading

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

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD- The appellant’s mark is Magic Laxmanrekha which is how all along he has been using the mark. The respondent’s mark as directed for registration is KRAZYLINES LAXMANREKHA all the words in the same line. Krazylines per se has been in the market for long. Even if the application for this mark is subsequent to the appellants mark, in view of the fact that for a long time, the respondent’s carton and label have admittedly shown not only the word KRAZYLINES but also the Slogan “Draw a Laxmanrekha,” the conditions imposed by the Registrar should be sufficient to protect public interest. 15. So for the above reasons, we think this is a case where we must justifiably exercise our discretion in favour of the respondent. The adoption is not dishonest as the respondent has been using the Slogan containing the word LAXMANREKHA for a long time. It is possible that the appellant was inspired to adopt the name from the Slogan. At the same time, we have also given our reason why we do not think there was any dishonesty or fraudulent conduct on the part of the appellant in adopting Magic Lines Laxman Rekha. So the order does not warrant interference. For all the reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 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 MUMBAI M.P. NOS.57/2004, 112/2006, 286/2010 & 293/2010 IN TA/62/2003/TM/MUM AND TA/62/2003/TM/MUM AND M.P. NOS.285/2010 &  291/2010 IN OA/20/2004/TM/MUM AND OA/20/2004/TM/MUM  FRIDAY, THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                                    … Chairman       … Continue reading

The respondent has obtained registration of the impugned trade mark KYK which is an identical and deceptively similar trade mark to that of the applicant’s well known and reputed trade mark KYK. The respondents have filed a suit against the applicant for injunction restraining the applicants from infringing the respondent’s registered trade mark. The registration of the impugned trade mark are being obtained by playing fraud upon the Registrar of Trade Marks. The respondents claim use since 10.10.1996 in respect of parts and fittings in Class 12 and as regards goods in respect of bearings, filters, gear and gear parts falling in Class 7 since 10.4.2000. It is however submitted that the applicants trade mark was bonafidely adopted by the applicant as back as in year 1952. The adoption of the impugned trade mark by the respondents is absolutely dishonest, malafide and in bad faith and is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Any use by the respondent therefore is void ab initio and no use in the eyes of law. = The two original rectification applications have been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the Civil Suit filed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The applicants have the locus to file and maintain the application for rectification. The marks are identical and are used in respect of identical goods. By the impugned registration, the applicant is likely to be injured or damaged in some way or the other. 26. The other issue is regarding the proprietorship of the trade mark “KYK”. The respondents have not placed before us any record or documents to say that V.K. Automobiles is also the proprietor of the trade mark. The Civil Suit has been filed by V.K. Automobiles and M/s. KYK International. The first application under No.949032 filed on 21.8.2000 has been filed by KYK Bearing International. On 25.8.2000, KYK Bearing International has assigned the trade mark in favour of V.K. Automobiles. If that is the case then how is it the application under No.1291522 on 21.6.2004 has been filed by KYK International. There is nothing on record to say if there had been any partial assignment. That apart the respondents claims user since 1996 as regards Class 12 application and 2000 as regards Class 7 application. When the mark was assigned to V.K. Automobiles in the year 2000 then the 1st bill dated 1999 in the name of V.K. Automobiles cannot be taken note of for deciding this case as it is not clear as to the proprietor. The respondent thus cannot be the proprietor of the trade mark and the registration is therefore in contravention of Section 18 of the Act. 27. The other issue is regarding the user claimed by the respondents in their application for registration. The respondents claim user since 1996 and 2000 in their application. There is no evidence prior to 2005. It is also the case of the respondent that the manufacturing of bearings were carried out through one M/s. Techno Mark Grindwell Industries. The 1st invoice is dated 2005 by M/s. Techno Mark Grindwell Industries. The respondents have not proved their user as claimed. 28. The respondents have claimed user since 10.10.1996 for Class 12 goods and 10.4.2000 for Class 7 goods. The respondent’s contention is that they had been dealing through one M/s. Techno Mark Grindwell Industries. It is not clear as to how long they were carrying on business through M/s. Techno Mark Grindwell Industries. As stated earlier 1st invoice is of the year 2005. In the absence of any documents either from 1996 or at least from 2000 the claim of user before the Registrar is wrong statement for which reason the mark cannot be allowed to continue on the Register. 29. As held earlier, the respondents having not given any cogent evidence to prove their user since the date as claimed in their application for registration, we do not think it correct to allow the mark to continue on the register. 30. The judgments relied on by both the parties are not dealt into as it will only multiply authorities. 31. For the reasons stated above, the impugned trade marks registered under Nos.1291522 and 949032 in Class 7 and 12 respectively are cancelled with a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI   M.P. No.249/2009 in ORA/220/2009/TM/DEL & ORA/220/2009/TM/DEL   FRIDAY, THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                     …   Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                                         …  Vice-Chairman   KYK Corporation Ltd.                                               … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,333 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