//
archives

syncom

This tag is associated with 1 post

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

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,318 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