Case: Borachem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Vs The Green Cross Corporation, Japan. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Mohan Dewan instructed by M/s. R.K. Dewan and Co., Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. V.G. Nair instructed by M/s DePenning & Depenning, Advocate |
| Judges | K. C. Kailasam, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 12(1), 18(1) |
| Citation | 1983 (3) PTC 318 (Reg) |
| Judgement Date | August 05, 1983 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
K. C. Kailasam, DRTM.
On 18th January, 1978, The Green Cross Corporation, 1-47, Chuo-I-chom, Joto-Ku, Osaka, Japan, made an application bearing application No. 332618 for the registration of a trade mark consisting of a device of a Cross, in green colour and the words Green Cross and the word ''APAM' printed over the device of the Green Cross, in class 5 in respect of "pharmaceutical vaterinary and sanitary substances; infants' and invalids' goods; plasters, materials for bandaging; material for stopping teeth, dental was, disinfectant; preparations for killing weeds and destroying vermin". The application was advertised before acceptance in Trade Marks Journal No. 722 dated 1st July, 1979.
A notice of opposition was filed on 20.8.79 by Borachem Industries Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opponents) inter alia on the following grounds:
-
That the opponents are the proprietor of a number of trade marks, including the mark ''ALPAM' which is being used by them in respect of "Pharmaceutical preparations containing diazepam'. This mark has been applied for registration in their name under No. 330002 dated 20th October, 1977.
-
That the mark is application No. 332618 is deceptively similar to the opponents' mark as aforesaid and is such that its use in normal course of business is bound to cause confusion and deception as to the origin of the goods.
-
That the goods for which the applicants are seeking registration are the same goods or are goods of the same description as the goods for which their said trade mark is being used.
-
That the applicants have copies the major portion of their trade mark and have applied for its registration, the only difference in the applicants' mark being the absence of a single letter ''L' which is usually slurred over in actual use.
-
That the registration of the mark applied for in the name of the applicants would be contrary to Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
A counter-statement was filed on 26.11.1979 by the applicants generally denying the allegations of the opponents. The evidence in support of the opposition consists of an affidavit dated 20.7.1980 of Anil Seva, Director of the Opponent company. The evidence in support of the application consists of an affidavit dated 16.10.80 of Shozo Ieshil, Manager of Patent and Licensing Dept. of the Applicants' corporation. The evidence in reply is by any of affdavit dated 10.10.81 of Ashok Sora one of the Director of the Opponents Company.
The matter came up before me for hearing, when Shri...
To continue reading
Request your trial