R.P. No. 7/2013 in OA/44/2012/TM/CH and M.P. Nos. 313 and 314/2013 and 153/2014 in R.P. No. 7/2013 in OA/44/2012/TM/CH. Case: Anil Appalam & Chips Vs K.S. Raja and Ors.. Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases
| Case Number | R.P. No. 7/2013 in OA/44/2012/TM/CH and M.P. Nos. 313 and 314/2013 and 153/2014 in R.P. No. 7/2013 in OA/44/2012/TM/CH |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.P. Chockalingam and For Respondents: Sunil Paul |
| Judges | K.N. Basha, J. (Chairman) and Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Member (T) |
| Issue | Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 21(2), 3, 3(2) |
| Judgement Date | April 15, 2015 |
| Court | Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases |
Order:
K.N. Basha, J. (Chairman)
-
This Review Petition is preferred challenging the order of Intellectual Property Appellate Board dated 3/6/2013 passed in OA/44/2012/TM/CH.
-
Mr. S.P. Chockalingam, the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Paul, the learned counsel for the first respondent are present today.
-
Mr. Chockalingam, the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner would submit that the petitioner preferred writ petitions challenging the common order passed in OA/44 of 2012 and ORA/247 of 2010 as both the matters are arising between the same parties in W.P. Nos. 27703 and 27704 of 2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras considering that a review petition has already been filed and pending on the file of this Bench, directed the petitioner to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with a liberty to pursue the review application. It is submitted that both the writ petitions have been dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with a liberty to agitate again if they are advised so based on the outcome of the decision in the review application.
-
Mr. Chockalingam would contend that the impugned order passed by IPAB in OA/44/2012/TM/CH is only on the basis of non serving of notice by the Registry enabling the first respondent herein to file their counter statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that at the time of disposal of the appeal, the petitioner was not able to produce any evidence to substantiate their contention that notice was already served on the first respondent herein by the Registry. It is contended that while passing the impugned order, the entire records had not been called for from the Registry. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act on 17/6/2013 seeking for the information about serving of notice in respect of opposition No. 763112 to application No. 1496379 in class 30 and in response to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner received a reply dated 25/7/2013 from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks/Central Public Information Officer stating that the applicant in the above said opposition matter has been served with a copy of the notice of opposition as per letter No. TOP/1735 dated 19/7/2010 and the copy of the letter was also enclosed. Therefore, it is contended that in view of...
To continue reading
Request your trial