Case: Amber Cycle Industries, Ludhiana Vs Amber Auto Traders, Delhi. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Advocate instructed by Shri K.L. Aggarwal, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade Mark and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 56
Citation1984 (4) PTC 221 (Reg)
Judgement DateMay 08, 1984
CourtTrademark Tribunal

Judgment:

M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM.

  1. This order will dispose of the two interlocutory petitions filed on 4.4.83 and 6/4/83 by the Opponents in Opposition No. Del - 3654 to Application No. 349983B. Copies of the aforesaid two petitioner were sent to the Applicants/Respondents for their comments. The Applicants/Respondent objected to allow the said petition. Hearing was therefore posted for 26. 4. 84. None appeared on behalf of the Opponents/petitioners. Shri M.K. Miglani, Advocate appeared for the Applicants/Respondents.

  2. Firstly, I shall deal with the interlocutory petition filed on 4.4.83.

  3. The Opponents/petitioners'. prayer in the said petition is that they may be allowed to place reliance on the evidence filed in Opposition No. Del-2975 which was filed by the Applicants/Respondents to the Opponents/Petitioners Application No. 315912.

  4. The Applicants/Respondents in their comments have stated.

  5. That the said petition is filed to delay the Applicants/Respondents' registration.

  6. That the Opponents/Petitioners cannot rely on the evidence filed by the Applicants /Respondents.

  7. That the Opponents/Petitioners cannot have not specifically stated as to what piece of evidence they proposed to rely upon.

  8. That the Opponents/Petitioners have not made out any ground for filing such evidence.

    In their comments, the Applicants/Respondents have raised a point the Opponents/Petitioners cannot rely on the evidence filed by Applicants/Respondents but they have not cited any statutory provisions or a decided case in support of their contention. It is correct that the Opponents/Petitioners have not made our a ground for filing evidence. However, on going through the record it is seen that at the stage of filling evidence is support of opposition, the Opponents/Petitioners have filed a copy of affidavit dated 13.6.80 filed by Amar Nath in Opposition No. Del 2975 and that thereupon the Office had informed the Opposition/Petitioners that if they desired to rely upon evidence filed in Opposition No. Del 2975they should file an interlocutory petition for the purpose. The Opponents/Petitioner have not started the Rule under which they desire to file evidence is laid down in Rule 53 to 55. As the petition is filed after the completion of the evidence by the Applicants/Respondent, the evidence cab be filed only under Rule 56 enables the Registrar to grant leave to either of the parties to file further evidence upon such terms as to costs or otherwise, as he...

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