//
archives

social-media

This tag is associated with 21 posts

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Where a registered trade mark has acquired a goodwill and reputation, such use cannot be permitted to be used by another person as it would cause confusion and deception. This was the view of the Delhi High Court in Benz case which had been followed in a number of cases. In the instant case, the appellant’s trade mark had acquired a goodwill and reputation among the public for garments and textiles goods over several decades. The respondent’s application for registration without any use for the good for which the application was made cannot be permitted. 24. Sub Section (3) of Section 11 prevents registration of a trade mark, the use of which is liable to be prevented by virtue of any law – law of passing off and the copyright law. In Toshiba’s case 2002 (24) PTC 654 it was held that the opponents trade mark Toshiba was well known to the public and as such the use of the mark “Toshiba” by the applicants would definitely create confusion or deception. 25. Further the adoption by the respondent is only to trade upon and earn the profits upon the appellant’s reputation. This will only amount to passing of their goods as that of the other. The appellant’s objection under Section 11(3) is therefore upheld. 26. The onus is always on the appellant to prove their case that the registration of the impugned trade mark would not cause confusion among the trade and public. The respondent ie. the applicant has not satisfied as there is no use of the trade mark in relation to the goods for which registration has been applied for. The appellants goods has acquired goodwill and reputation in the market and the use by the respondent would lead the public to think that they are the appellants goods. 27. We do not agree with the finding of the Registrar that “though the trade mark is a well known mark no harm will be caused to the appellant as they have not applied for registration in class 9 & 16.” The Registrar has relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in Toshiba Case and has come to this conclusion, but has not stated as to how the balancing act between the user of registered trade marks and non use should be tested. The case relied on by the Assistant Registrar, is not applicable to this case on hand in our view. That case was one under rectification proceedings where the registration granted was to continue on the register whereas the instant case is an opposition proceedings to decide whether registration ought to be granted or not. 28. For the above mentioned reasons, we allow the appeals and the registration of the trade mark “Raymond James” under Nos.1058742 and 1058745 in class 9 & 16 respectively is refused. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- each.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   OA/16-17/2010/TM/CH FRIDAY, THIS THE  6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                   …  Chairman Hon’ble Ms. S. Usha                                                     …  Vice-Chairman   M/s. Raymond Limited, Plot No.156/HISSA No.2, Village Zadgaon, Ratangiri – 415 612, Maharastra.                                                                           … Continue reading

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=Petitioner, a Multi Service Operator operating in the town of Shadnagar in the State of Andhra Pradesh, has filed these petitions inter-alia praying for a direction upon the Respondents herein to supply signals of their respective channels to its network as provided under Clause 3.2 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004, as amended from time to time (‘The Regulations’).=The cable operator has no valid registration certificate, no valid permissions, no required equipment installed, no business house, no proper documents presented as per rules, Hence not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

Page 1 of 20 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 13TH MARCH, 2012 Petition No.376 (C) of 2011 Shri Hanuman Communications … Petitioner Vs. Sun 18 Media Services South Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent Petition No.377 (C) of 2011 Shri Hanuman Communications … Petitioner Vs. Maa Television Network Ltd. … Respondent Petition No.378 … Continue reading

The applicants have filed this application for rectification after a Civil Suit was filed by the respondent against the applicant before the District Court, Indore. The rival marks are similar for similar goods. The word “aggrieved” person has been defined in Powell’s trade mark case as, “A person aggrieved includes the rivals in the same trade who are aggrieved by the entry of the rival’s mark in the register or person whose legal rights would or might be limited if the mark remains on the register, he could not lawfully do that which, but for the existence of the mark on the register he could lawfully do.” Both the applicant and the respondent are in the same trade. Based on the above, the applicant is prima facie an aggrieved person.The date of use and the proprietorship of the mark is not clear. We are of the view that the trade mark is wrongly remaining on the register without any sufficient cause. The impugned trade mark therefore deserves to be cancelled. The application for rectification ORA/136/2006/TM/MUM is allowed with a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trade mark CTZ registered under No.1134631 in Class 5 with costs of Rs.3,000/

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYAPPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018     ORA/136/2006/TM/MUM      FRIDAY, THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                    …  Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                                       …  Vice-Chairman   M/s. P.I. Pharmaceuticals Pvt.  Ltd. C-257, Eastend Apartments Chilla Delhi-110096.                                                                   …  Applicant   … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD =“22. It is expressly agreed that the directors of M/s Pioneer Bakeries Private Limited Company themselves should not object usage of brand name “MILKA” by M/s New Hope Food Industries Private Limited all varieties of Cakes and M/s Milka Nutrients Private Limited all varieties of Biscuits. =16. It is unfortunate that both Shri Joseph and Shri Arumugam who were originally the founder Directors of the company as seen from the Memorandum of Agreement of the applicant company have now chosen to execute or enter into documents which will dilute the property of the company. The registered trade mark does not belong to Mr. Jayakrishnan. Even if Mr. Jayakrishnan is removed as Managing Director of the applicant this mark will belong to the applicant. What is sought to be protected by these ORAs is that the property of the applicant company shall not be diluted. It is well settled that a trade mark can have only one source. The impugned trade mark is identical to the mark which admittedly belongs to the licensor, the applicant and the respondent cannot be the registered proprietor.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-l, 2nd floor, 443, Anna  Salai, Teynampet,  Chennai 600 018 ORA/134 and 135/2009/TM/CH FRIDAY, THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012   HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN                        …     CHAIRMAN HON’BLE Ms. S. USHA                                                                 …    VICE-CHAIRMAN   Pioneer Bakeries (P) Limited, Poondurai Road, Moolapalayam, P.O.Erode – 638 002.                                                          … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD =17. The Registrar had also held in the order that it appears that there was no practical dissolution of the firm by the deed of dissolution. The dispute has been solved by the Arbitrators and an award had been passed by which the trade mark was to be used. The opponent i.e. the appellant has not proved his case for rejecting the application for registration. The appellant having allowed the respondent to use the trade mark cannot now object to the same. Both had been carrying on business within the reach of the other. The marks are not similar in our opinion. The Registrar has therefore allowed the registration confining the sale to the State of Jharkhand.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018                                                                                                                    ***** (Circuit Bench at Kolkata)   OA/33 and 41/2007/TM/KOL   FRIDAY, THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012   HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN          …  CHAIRMAN HON’BLE MS. S. USHA                                                       …  VICE-CHAIRMAN M/s Anuradha, 16 Rathore Mansion, Bank More, Dhanbad – 826 … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD =26. The mark has been applied for registration on 10.3.1987 claiming user since 1986 and the mark was registered on 31.01.1990. The mark has been in the register for more than a decade. The applicants were aware of the respondent’s registration in 1990, as seen from the letter dated 27.9.1997 or at least from 1999. The mark has been put to use since 1986 and registration obtained in 1990. The application for rectification has been filed in 2006. The applicant having allowed the respondent to grow in strength for 16 years cannot now restrain them. We think it not fit to remove the trade mark, which had been in the register for more than a decade.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYAPPELLATE BOARD  Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   ORA/106/2006/TM/CH                                                                                   FRIDAY, THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                    …  Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                                       …  Vice-Chairman     ZANDER AUFBEREITUNGSTECHNIK GMBH & CO. KG IM TEELBRUCH 118 D-45219 ESSEN (KETTWIG) GERMANY.               … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD =11. We have heard and considered the arguments of both the Counsel and have gone through the pleadings and arguments. The marks namely PLAX and CLAX are not similar in our opinion. The goods for which the trade marks are used are different. The appellant’s goods are chewing gum and lozenges for medical purposes, dental preparations (medical), Denture cleaners, Denture (additives). The respondent’s goods are antibiotics for curing dental infections and tooth extraction.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT AHMEDABAD   OA/28/2007/TM/AMD                                                                                FRIDAY, THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012     Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                    …  Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                                       …  Vice-Chairman   Colgate-Palmolive Company, a Company Incorporated and existing … 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

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD =1. In these proceedings the appellant seeks to quash and to set aside the order of the then Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks refusing Application No. 1414802 in class 42 for registration in respect of a trade mark REAL PERSON CUSTOMER SERVICE filed by M/s. Network Solutions LLC, USA. The back ground of the case is mentioned below:- =matter remanded for fresh enquiry

INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY   APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018   (Circuit Bench sitting at Delhi)   OA/40/2008/TM/DEL   TUESDAY, THIS THE  31st DAY OF JANUARY,  2012     Hon’ble Ms. S. USHA                                   — Vice-Chairman Hon’ble Shri V, RAVI                                     — Technical Member   M/s. NETWORK SOLUTIONS LLC … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD=The applicants claim use of the mark “SUSTEN” since the year 2000 whereas the respondents claim use of the mark “SUSTAINE” since the year 2001. The rival marks “SUSTEN” and “SUSTAINE” in our view are deceptively and phonetically similar. In medicinal products the authorities concerned are to be more cautious while granting registration. The applicants are prior in adoption and use and have placed certain evidence to prove their use. The settled principle is that priority prevails over the registered proprietor. 13. When the marks are considered to be similar in respect of identical goods, there is every possibility of confusion being caused among the public. The registration is therefore in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 14. For the above said reasons, the rectification petition ORA/139/2006/TM/MUM is allowed with a direction to the Registrar to remove the trade mark “SUSTAINE” registered under No.1008872 in Class 5 from the register of Trade Marks. No order as to costs. M.P. No.63/2008 is closed.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT MUMBAI   M.P.No.63/2008 IN ORA/139/2006/TM/MUM AND ORA/139/2006/TM/MUM                                                                                FRIDAY, THIS THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                    …  Chairman Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                                       …  Vice-Chairman   Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,953 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