Case: Accurate Engineers, Junagadh (Gujarat) Vs Alps Engineering Co. Jallandhar. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Ajay Sahni, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. A.K. Goel, Advocate
JudgesOm Parkash, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Section 97(c); Civil Procedure Code - Order 47 Rule 1
Judgement DateJanuary 01, 1993
CourtTrademark Tribunal

Judgment:

Om Parkash, DRTM

  1. The proceedings herein relate to Review Petition filed on 12th October, 1992 by M/s. Accurate Engineering, 101, G.I.D.C. Estate, Vadal Road, Junagadh (Gujarat) (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners/Opponents).

  2. The grounds of this Review Petition are given as under:

    (i) That the petitioners/opponents Advocate did not receive any letter or communication from the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi till 25th June, 1992 so a reminder was issued on 25th June, 1992 requesting the Registrar to treat the application as abandoned.

    (ii) That the petitioners/opponents counsel did not receive any official letter No.1725 dated 21st May, 1992 from the Deputy Registrars' order communicated by office letter dated 4th September, 1992 be set aside and the opposition be taken on record and proceed therewith.

  3. On 12th February, 1993, M/s. Alps Engineering Company, E-12, Industrial Area Jallandhar -- 144 004 (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents/Applicants) filed their comments given as under:

    (i) That there is no apparent mistake on the face of the order and as such the same does not require any review. Even the application fail to specify any mistake/error apparent, or otherwise, in the order dated 4th September, 1992.

    (ii) That the opponents Advocate had not intentionally and deliberately filed the power of attorney alongwith the notice of opposition and also inspite of official letter No.1725 dated 21.5.1992. Hence, the notice of opposition, without any authorization is not liable to be taken on record. Hence, the petition may be dismissed with special and compensatory costs.

  4. Upon completion of the abovesaid formalities, the matter was set down for hearing on 30th April, 1993 when Sh. Ajay Sahni, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners/opponents and Sh. A.K. Goel, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents/applicants.

  5. Ld. Counsel Sh. Sahni argued that the petitioners had not received any letter from the Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi till 25th June, 1992. Resultantly, the petitioners/opponents also sent a reminder on 25th June, 1992 to the Registrar to treat the application as abandoned. The order issued on 4.9.1992 may be set aside and the opposition be taken on record and proceed with as requested for.

  6. Ld. Counsel for Respondents/applicants argued that the instant review petition is not maintainable at all since there is no provision for review of such order under the relevant law. There...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT