Application No. 1387618 and Opposition No. Cal-711263. Case: Anjali Creations Private Limited Vs Zyro Limited. Trademark Tribunal
| Case Number | Application No. 1387618 and Opposition No. Cal-711263 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Shumanto Gupta, Advocate |
| Judges | M. H. Mahendra (JRTM) |
| Issue | Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 21(1) |
| Citation | 2008 (36) PTC 645 (Reg) |
| Judgement Date | February 12, 2008 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. H. Mahendra (JRTM)
-
This order will dispose of a proposed opposition dated 11th October, 2007 filed by M/s. Zyro Limited, a Company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, at York Road, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, YO7 3BX, United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicants' trade mark inter alia consisting of the word "ALTURA" label per se filed under Application No. 1387618 in class 25 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1360 Regular dated 16th January, 2007 at page 1759, which made available to the public on 14th June, 2007. A notice of opposition alongwith a request on Form TM-44 for extention of time by one month for filing the notice of opposition was filed by the above named Opponents to the aforesaid application 11th October, 2007 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now arises as to whether the request on Form TM-44 alongwith the notice of opposition filed to the aforesaid application on 1lth October, 2007 is within the statutory period or not.
-
Pursuant to this office letter No. TOP/4853 dated 19th November, 2007 M/s. ZeuslP, Advocates, new Delhi instructed by the above named Opponents submitted a reply under their letter dated 27th November, 2007 stating that the above noted application was advertised in the Trade Mars Journal No. 1360 Regular dated 16th January, 2007 at page 1759, which made available to the public on 14th June, 2007 and obviously time to file the notice of opposition to the said application was 14th October, 2007 and that the notice of opposition in question alongwith a request on Form TM-44 filed by the Opponents on 11th October, 2007 is well within the prescribed time as envisaged under Section 21(1) of the Act, which may be taken on record and the matter be proceeded further in accordance with the law.
-
Hearing to consider the proposed opposition too place before me on 7th February, 2008, when Mr. Shumanto Gupta, Advocate authorised by M/s. ZeuslP, Advocates, New Delhi appeared on behalf of the Opponents in the above matter.
-
Mr. Shumanto Gupta, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Opponents submitted that Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits the filing of a extension of an application beyond three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate. It is evident from a plain reading of Section 21(1) that the Legislature has not intended to prescribe the time limit of only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed any time limit for filing the application for extension of time.
-
Mr. Gupta also stated that Section 21(1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 47(1) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002 clearly indicates that the notice of opposition filed after three months has to be accompanied by the frees prescribed in First schedule alongwith an application for seeking an extension of time beyond three months, to file the notice of opposition.
-
Mr. Gupta further submitted that Sub-rule (6) of Rule 47 of Trade Marks Rules, 2002 prescribes a procedural requirements for seeking extension of time to file a notice of opposition and submission of an extension application under Rule 47(6) within three months has not specifically prescribed either in the Act or the Rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial