Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case: Brooke Bond India Limited, Calcutta Vs Shah Shantilal & Co., Bombay. Trademark Tribunal

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Party Name:Brooke Bond India Limited, Calcutta Vs Shah Shantilal & Co., Bombay
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Shah, Advocate i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. and For Respondents: Mr. T.N. Daruwalla, Advocate
Judges:K. C. Kailasam, JRTM
Issue:Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 53(2)
Citation:1991 (11) PTC 302 (Reg)
Judgement Date:July 30, 1990
Court:Trademark Tribunal

Judgment:

K. C. Kailasam, JRTM

  1. This will dispose of an application for review of the Registrar's Order dated 2.9.1989 filed by Brooke Bond India Limited, Brooke House, 9, Shakespere Sarani, Calcutta-700 071 (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents").

  2. The review petition came up before me for hearing on 20.7.1990 when Shri T.N. Daruwalla, Advocate, appeared for Shah Shantilal & Co., 75, New Barden Lane, Bombay-3 (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants") and Shri Bharat Shah, Advocate, instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co., Solicitors, appeared for the Opponents.

  3. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows:

    Application No. 325310 in class 30 for registration of the trade mark label "Girnar" in the name of the applicants was advertised before acceptance under provision to Section 20(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act in the Trade Marks Journal No. 912 dated 1.6.1987. The Opponents filed a notice of opposition to the registration of the trade mark on various grounds and the Applicants filed their counter-statement denying the allegations. A copy of the counter-statement was served by the Registry on the Opponents under Section 21(3) of the Act. Their attention was also invited to Rule 53 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 and particularly to the fact that if no evidence in support of the opposition is left at the Registry or if no intimation that the Opponents do not desire to adduce any evidence is received within two months, the Opposition will be deemed to have been abandoned vide Rule 53(2). As requested by the Opponents, time for filing evidence under Rule 52 was extended from time to time, upto 7.7.1988. The Applicants' Advocate by his letter dated 11.8.1988 drew the attention of the Registrar to the fact that though the Applicants filed their counter-statement on 14.12.1987, the Opponents have still not filed evidence in support of the notice of opposition. They therefore prayed that the Registrar should pass appropriate order under Rule 53(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules. In the absence of any request for extension of time beyond 7.7.1988 and having regard to the fact that no evidence in support of the opposition was filed, a formal order was passed under Rule 53(2) treating the opposition as abandoned vide Joint Registrar's Order dated 2.9.1989. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the present review petition.

  4. The grounds of review mainly are:

    (a) Application for extension of time beyond 7.7.1988 could to be filed immediately as the concerned Assistant was out of Bombay for professional work;

    (b) There were labour problems in Opponents' Attorneys Office. The staff members were on strike for 93 days and the file relating to opposition proceedings was not traceable at the relevant time;

    (c) The Registrar had called upon the Applicants to explain why there was change of partners in the counter-statement. The Opponents were therefore...

To continue reading

Request your trial