Case: Blue Star Limited, Bombay Vs Liberty Textile Industries, Bombay. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S.B. Krishna, Advocate of International Trade Marks Bureau and For Respondents: Mr. Mohan Dewan, Advocate of R.K. Dewan & Co.
JudgesT. R. Subramanian, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rules 54, 55, 56, 116
Judgement DateApril 28, 1988
CourtTrademark Tribunal


T. R. Subramanian, DRTM

This is an Interlocutory Petition dated 20-4-1988 filed by M/s. Blue Star Limited of Kasturi Bldg., Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay -- 400 020 (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents) in the above opposition proceedings. The above Interlocutory Petition was filed by the opponents on 22-4-1988 and it came for hearing before me on 25-4-1988 when Shri S.B. Krishna, Advocate of International Trade Mark, Bureau appeared for the opponents and Shri Mohan Dewan, Advocate of R.K. Dewan & Co. appeared for the applicants.

In this Interlocutory Petition the opponents have prayed for taking on record the

additional evidences filed under Rule 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 along with the Interlocutory Petition. The grounds are: -

That the opponents have already filed their evidence in reply under Rule 56.

That the main hearing on the matter has been scheduled for 25-4-88. The opponents have addressed certain traders, individuals, who are in the business to file affidavits in support of the opposition, but the affidavits were not received by the opponents, earlier and could not be therefore be filed in time. As the affidavits have now been received and they pertain to the issues in the determination of this case the same should be allowed and taken on record as further evidences under Rule 56.

That great prejudice would be caused to them if the additional evidences are not taken on record, whereas no inconvenience of hardship would be caused to the applicants.

At the hearing the counsel for the opponents submitted that they had received affidavits from certain traders and other individuals and the same should be taken on record as additional evidences. He further stressed that courts have decided in many cases that evidence should not be shut out at any stage of the proceedings. The counsel for the applicants opposed the Interlocutory Petition and submitted that they would give their comments on the petition in the hearing itself. He prayed that the present opposition proceedings be proceeded with, without taking on record the additional evidences filed by the opponents. He submitted that the applicants have filed their evidence in the form of an affidavit by Hemant Vakil dated 20-3-1982 at the Trade Marks Registry office on 8-4-1982. Thereafter, the opponents have filed their reply evidence on 23-11-1983 after a lapse of one year seven months in the form of an affidavit from Shri P.S. Ramnath dated...

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