Case: Arasan Match Industries, Sivakasi Vs Wimco Limited, Bombay. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. P.C.N. Raghupathy, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Mohan Dewan, Advocate
JudgesC. S. Rao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 97(c), 123; Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rules 21(3), 115
Citation1990 (10) PTC 233 (Reg)
Judgement DateJuly 30, 1990
CourtTrademark Tribunal


C. S. Rao, DRTM.

  1. Proceedings herein under both the above oppositions Nos MAS-1755 and MAS-1842 pertain to review petitions filed on 12.4.1990 by A. M. S. Ganesan trading as Arasan Match Industries, 72 Javulikadai Street, Sivakasi (hereinafter referred to as petitioner). Petitioner seeks to review the orders passed by this tribunal on 28.11.89 treating as withdrawn his applications Nos. 376025 and 352658 under oppositions Nos. MAS-/1755 and MAS-1842 respectively. The afore-mentioned opposition Nos. MAS-1755 and MAS-1842 are filed by Wimco Ltd., Bombay (herein after referred to as respondents).

  2. The above referred applications Nos. 352658 and 376025 were filed by petitioner seeking registration of his labels marks consisting of the devices of an aeroplane, tank and a ship-all the three arranged together on composite labels. Respondents filed above mentioned oppositions to the above marks on the ground of their conflict with Respondents' earlier registered trade marks containing ship and aeroplane etc. After both parties in the above oppositions filed evidence in support of their respective contentions, the cases were heard on 20.10.89. But under letters dt. 11.10.89 which reached this tribunal as late as on 15.11.89, the Applicants' counsel wrote to this tribunal as follow:

    Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicants, and due to some technical reasons, we may request you to kindly treat the above noted applications as 'WITHDRAWN' with no order as to costs.

    Accordingly this tribunal has treated both the applications as withdrawn and passed orders dt. 28.11.1989 deeming both the opposition as abated with no order as to costs since the cases were not decided on merits.

  3. In the review petitions now under consideration it is these letters of withdrawal, sent by Application' counsel, which are attacked on the ground that Applicant did not authorize the said counsel to withdraw the application and that the tribunal also has not scrutinized the truth or authority for the said withdrawal and therefore that order passed by the tribunal treating the applications as withdrawn shall be set aside by way of review.

  4. The respondents filed their comments and vehemently opposed the review petitions. They also contended that the review petitions are time barred as they are not filed within the prescribed time limits.

  5. The review Petitions came up for a hearing before me on 23rd July 1990 when Shri P.C.N. Raghupathy...

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