Case: C.L. Jain Trust, Delhi Vs Khalsa Auto Workshop, Amritsar. Trademark Tribunal
|Party Name:||C.L. Jain Trust, Delhi Vs Khalsa Auto Workshop, Amritsar|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, Advocate instructed by Mr. K.G. Bansal, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, Advocate|
|Judges:||M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM|
|Issue:||Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rules 53, 54, 55, 56|
|Judgement Date:||October 28, 1987|
M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
These proceedings relate to the Interlocutory Petition filed on 8th April, 1987 by the Opposition No. Del-4263 to Application No.345787 in Class 7.
Hearing to consider the said petition was posted for 5.10.1987. Shri Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, Advocate instructed by Shri K.G. Bansal, Advocate appeared for the Opponents/Petitioners. Shri Kamal Kishore Arora, Advocate appeared for the Applicants/Respondents.
The Opponents'/Petitioners' prayer is found in paragraph 8 of their petition, which reads as follows: -
"............the opponents may be permitted to adduce the necessary material documentary evidence in support of the above proceedings under the aforementioned rules.
In Opposition proceedings, the parties have to file evidence according to the procedure prescribed in Rules 53 to 56. The Opponents have not filed any evidence in support of opposition under rule 53. The Applicants have filed their evidence in support of their application under Rule 54. The Opponents have not filed their evidence in reply. Presumably, the Opponents seek to file "further evidence" under Rule 56.
The grounds of the said petition are found in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said petition. Broadly, the main ground of the said petition is that the Opponents could not obtain evidence from their predecessors who had assigned the proprietory rights of the trade mark JOHNSON, as their predecessors were involved in manifold litigation and that the documents have now been collected.
Rule 56 runs as follow: -
"56. Further evidence. No further evidence shall be left on either side but in any proceedings before the Registrar, he may at any time, if he thinks fit, give leave to either the applicant or the opponent to leave any evidence upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as he may think fit."
Rule 55 states that after evidence in reply has been filed by the opponent, no further evidence shall be left on either side, but the Registrar may at any time, if he thinks fit, give leave to either party to leave any evidence upon terms. Leave to file further evidence may be allowed by the Registrar in order to clarify vague statements in the affidavits already tendered, subject to the condition that the other party is given an opportunity of replying to the evidence and to cross-examine the deponent with regard to the material contained in new evidence. (The Law of Trade and Merchandise Marks by Dr. S. Venkateswaram, 1963 edn., page 355).
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL