//
archives

Teynampet

This tag is associated with 7 posts

Application for registration of trade mark “SHARP” was refused after hearing objection , the application was rejected Hence the appeal – Ans. :- Dismissed = 1. Sunil Grover, Trading as Analog Systems, A-10, Ranjit Nagar, Community Centre, Behind Satyam Cinema, New Delhi 100 008. … Application (Represented by Advocate: Shri Mr. M.K. Miglani) 1. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation), 22-22 Nagaike-Cho-Abeno-Ku, 545 Osaka, Japan (Add. For service in India Mohan Associates, Ceebros Building,D-4, III Floor, Cenetaph Road, Teynampet-18) 2. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trade Marks Registry, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110 020. … Respondents (Represented by Advocate: Shri Arun C. Mohan) published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/206-2013.htm

Application for registration of trade mark “SHARP” was refused after hearing objection , the application was rejected Hence the appeal –  The appellant are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing TV Booster, antenna for TV,  two in one and converters for the last many years. In 1974, they honestly and bonafidely adopted a … Continue reading

This Revocation Application has been filed against the patent No.219504 “Combination of Brimonidine and Timolol” for topical Opthalmic use. The revocation is sought for on various grounds viz., that the Patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation, that it is not an invention that it is obvious, that it does not sufficiently disclose and that Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 was violated.= As regards Section 3(e), according to the applicant it is merely an admixture and each drug provides the effect that any way individually it would do. We have already seen that the two drugs work in a different way in reducing IOP. The tests do not compare the composition with sequential combination as shown in Yuksel. The nearest prior art is the serial administration. A comparison with that would have shown if the improvement is only additive or more. That evidence is not before us. In view of our holding against the respondent on obviousness and S.8.Compliance it is not necessary for us to decide the 3(e) issue. 104. We have found the claimed invention as obvious. The BID administration was known and % / w of the drugs was also knownWe are not inclined to accept the amendments at this stage. =For the above reasons ORA/21/2011/PT/KOL is allowed and patent No.219504 is revoked. M.P. No.2/2012 is closed. As regards M.P. Nos.59/2012, 128/2012 and 134/2012 no orders are necessary. M.P. Nos. 60, 61, 72, 73, 127, 135/2012, 12/2013 and 15/2013 are allowed.

published in  http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/173-2013.htm INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 ORA/21/2011/PT/KOL AND M.P. NOS.60/2011, 2/2012, 59-61/2012, 72/2012, 73/2012, 127/2012, 128/2012, 134/2012, 135/2012, 12/2013 AND 15/2013 IN ORA/21/2011/PT/KOL   THURSDAY, THIS THE  8TH DAY OF AUGUST , 2013   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan   … Chairman Hon’ble Mr. D.P.S.Parmar                      … Continue reading

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

Grant of Patent rights – “Drug Combination”- “A Non-Interacting Drug Combination for Treating Hyperlipidaemia in Mammals”. = This appeal is against the dismissal of the opposition to a Patent Application No.113/MUM/2000 under the “A Non-Interacting Drug Combination for Treating Hyperlipidaemia in Mammals”. The granted patent No.212310 was published on 25.01.2008. It was filed on 04.02.2000 originally bearing titled “Drug Combination” claiming priority from three U.K. Applications all of the year 1999. Post grant opposition was filed. An opposition Board was constituted and the opposition board recommended that the ground under Section 25(2)(b) was established by the opponent, the ground under Section 25(2)(g) was not established. However, the Opposition Board said that S. 25(2)(e) which is obviousness and Section 25(2)(f) was established by the opponent. The Controller held that the present invention was novel since no single document anticipated the invention and the person skilled in the art would not have found the invention obvious and that the prior art cannot be used to arrive at the present invention. The Controller also held that the invention did not fall under the provisions of Section 25(3)(d) or (3)(e) and therefore the objection relating to Section 25(2)(f) was not established. In these circumstances, the Controller did not accept the recommendation of the Board and rejected the opposition. = The Controllers have to remember in Opposition proceedings, that they must deal with the Opposition Board’s recommendations in their orders. They are free to agree or to disagree, but it is a crucial part of the records before the Controller. If they are accepting the recommendations, perhaps they need not deal with it at length. But when they disagree with it, as in this case, they must explain why and give reasons. 38. In the result, we confirm the decision of the Controller. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

 published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/124-2013.htm  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 * * * * * * (CIRCUIT BENCH AT MUMBAI)   OA/15/2011/PT/MUM AND Miscellaneous Petition Nos.18-19/2011 & 65/2012 IN OA/15/2011/PT/MUM WEDNESDAY THIS THE  12TH  DAY OF JUNE, 2013 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                                …Chairman       Hon’ble  Shri D.P.S. … Continue reading

whether the competing goods are different and whether the Registrar was right in refusing the appellant’s opposition. In deciding on this point the well settled law is to consider the nature of goods; its characteristic; its origin; the purpose; whether it is produced usually by one and the same manufacturer or distributed by the same wholesale houses; whether they are sold in the same shop over the same counter; during the same season and to the same class or classes of customers; whether they are regarded as belonging to the same trade etc. The Act uses the expression ”Similarity of goods or services” [S.11(a)]. The essential requirement is that there should be such similarity resulting in the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The question whether or not two sets of goods are of the same description is a question of fact and in deciding that question “one has to look at the trade” and must look at it from a practical business and commercial point of view. It is recognized that classification of goods and services is only an enabling tool for seeking registration and we can find many goods of same description in different classes as also goods of different description in the same class. In the instant case the competing marks are identical i.e. SONA. The rival goods are used by the common man. The perception of the mark in the mind of average consumer plays a decisive role. Here the appellant coined, adopted and started using SONA from 1975. The respondent was born some ten years later. Here it is layperson – illiterate, semi-literate, housewives, servants who will be buying both goods. Confusion as to the trade source is therefore inevitable. When the rival goods are used through the same trade channel and sold in the same shop over the same counter, many customers will wonder whether it might not be the case that the two products come from the same source. There is a real tangible danger if the impugned trade mark is put on the Register. The respondent started the use of the impugned trade mark in 1985 with an annual turnover of Rs.36,000/-. Upto 1995 their annual turnover was always less than one lakh rupees. On the other hand even before the respondent’s trade mark was born in 1985, the appellant annual turnover had reached Rs.36.0 lakhs. No wonder the appellant are greatly exercised. He is expanding and diversifying his business. The appellant have thus established by evidence filed before the Registrar and beyond any reasonable doubt, the civil standard of proof required to show that potential customers for the appellant’s goods will be misled into purchasing the respondent’s goods. In determining the likelihood of confusion because of similarity of goods, we are concerned with ordinary practical business probabilities having regard to all the circumstances. There is great affinity between the competing goods here. Since the practice of Registry is not to permit registration for a broad range of goods in a class, it then becomes its duty to ensure correct application of law in respect of subsequent identical mark for cognate class of goods. The Deputy Registrar had erred in applying the wrong test and permitted the registration of the impugned trade mark. His ruling that the rival goods are totally dim-similar is misconceived as the class of customers has been ignored. Similarity and confusion as to origin both largely are matters of fact and impression. The appellant have built a reasonable reputation for their trade mark SONA ten years before the respondent. In deciding such cases one has to think like a common man. That is the only correct test that can be sustained. The supreme test is the likely public confusion bench marking the level of education, class of customers at ground zero. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar permitting registration of the impugned trade mark. OA/54/2005/TM/KOL is consequently allowed and the impugned trade mark “SONA” in class 30 is refused registration. There is 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 Kolkata)   OA/54/2005/TM/KOL FRIDAY, THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2012     HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN          … CHAIRMAN HON’BLE SHRI V. RAVI                                                   … TECHNICAL MEMBER   M/s Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd., 746, Industrial Area, Phase-11, … Continue reading

whether the impugned trade mark can continue to remain on the register when already a mark was on the registerThe respondent herein filed a Civil Suit against the applicant for infringement of the trade mark “CLAVMOX”. The applicant is the prior registered proprietor of the trade mark. Person who is in any way interested in having removed the mark and is in any way affected or damaged if the mark continued to remain on the register then that person is said to be a person aggrieved. In case on hand the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trade mark as of 1998. An identical trade mark if allowed to be registered subsequently would definitely cause damage and therefore the applicant is a “person aggrieved”.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018   (CIRCUIT SITTING AT AHMEDABAD)   M.P. No.105/2010  in ORA/95/2010/TM/AMD AND ORA/95/2010/TM/AMD    MONDAY, THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2012   Hon’ble Ms.S. Usha                                                       …  Vice Chairman Hon’ble Shri V. Ravi                                                      …  Technical Member                                                                                                     M/s. Cipla Ltd., … Continue reading

The opponent/appellant submitted they had been in the business of manufacturing and marketing of linear low density polyethylene and high density polyethylene resins are entirely different. The trade mark is derived from the corporate name and the combination of letter T with word TITANLENE which is structurally, visually and phonetically different to the opponent trade mark. The purchasing public of the rival marks are also different. The mark was applied for proposed to be used. On reply to this, the respondent submitted that they are the global proprietor of various trade mark containing the logo ‘T’ and Titan word like TITANEX, TITANPRO, TITANZEX, TITANCEED, etc. There is absolutely no similarity with the appellant mark. 3. The Registrar first took up the Section 9 objection and held that the unique combination of the different features of the mark should be taken into account and this mark is a composite mark containing letter ‘T’ in a logo form and word TITANLENE which is capable of distinguishing the goods of the respondent herein from the goods of the other traders. 4. Next the Registrar held that there was no evidence to show that the appellant herein using the mark in respect of the goods falling under Class 2. The Registrar relied on several judgments and held that there is no evidence of deception and confusion. The Registrar was also satisfied that the adoption was bonafide. The respondent has asserted his right to registration on the ground that the adoption is honest because T is the first letter of the name of its company and that the mark should be treated as composite mark and that there is no likelihood of confusion. The Registrar accepted this and ordered registration, we do not see any perversity in the order. We are not inclined to interfere with it. 15. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.3000/-.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATEBOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 (CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT DELHI) OA/47/2007/TM/DEL FRIDAY, THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2012 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                               … Chairman       Hon’ble Shri V. Ravi                                                                 … Technical Member M/s. T.T. Industries, Through its Proprietor R.C. Jain. 879, Master … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,860,980 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com