Case: Bharati Soap Mills, Chandigarh Vs Charkha Soap Mills, Delhi. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S.C. Chadha with Mr. Ajay Sahni, Advocate and Ms. Deepa Arya, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1), 18(1)
Citation1984 (4) PTC 201 (Reg)
Judgement DateJune 15, 1984
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM

On 6th March, 1972, Kahanchand, Santosh Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Smt. Kamal Sachdev, trading as Charkha Soap Mills, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi-7 (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants") made an application being No. 278748, to register the trade mark 'DEVTA" (word per se), in respect of washing soaps'. In their application, the Application have claimed user "since the year 1964". On preliminary examination, the office had raised objection on the ground of conflict with certain marks under Section 12 (1). The cited conflicting marks were subsequently removed or abandoned. The Application was thereafter advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 751 dated 16th September 1980, at page 550.

On 16th January, 1981, Vijay Kumar Khurana and Ashok Kumar Khurana, trading as Bharati Soap Mills, 267, Industrial Area, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") logged a Notice of Opposition under Section 21(1) to the registration of the aforesaid trade mark on the following grounds:

  1. That the Opponents manufacture and deal in soap.

  2. That in 1978 the Opponents have made an application for registration of their trade mark DEVATA and the same has been numbered as 335622.

  3. That the mark applied for is identical to the Opponents, mark.

  4. That, much reputation and goodwill have accrued to the Opponents, said trade mark due to its long use and publicity.

  5. That the Applicants are not the proprietors of the trade mark applied for.

  6. That the registration of the mark applied for will be contrary to the provisions of Sections, 9, 11(a), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Act.

In there counterstatement, the Applicants have stated that they have adopted their trade mark 'DEVTA' in 1964 in respect of washing soaps'. The rest of the counterstatement is one of denial of what is contained in the Notice of Opposition.

The Opponents did not file evidence in support of Opposition. By their Attorney's letter dated 20th February 1982 the opponents have informed that they wish to rely on the facts stated in their notice of Opposition. The Application did not file evidence in support of Application. The mater came before me for hearing on 13th June, 1984. None appeared for the Opponents. The Opponents did not even file Form TM-7 to signify that they desired to attend the hearing. Shri S.C. Chadha, Advocate, Shri Ajay Sahni, Advocate and Miss Deepa Arya, Advocate appeared for the Applicants.

The Opponents have nor explained their objection...

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