Case: Champagne Lanson Pere & Fils, Reino, France Vs Kalburgi Distilleries, Hubli. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. K.T. Jose, Trade Marks Agent and For Respondents: Mr. R.K. Dewan, Advocate
JudgesC. S. Rao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1), 18(1)
Citation1985 (5) PTC 261 (Reg)
Judgement DateOctober 30, 1985
CourtTrademark Tribunal


C. S. Rao, DRTM.

  1. On 30 January 1980 an application was filed, being application No. 357978, by Viswa Nath Venkusa Kalburgi and others trading as Kalburgi Distilleries, Dajibanpeth, Hubli 580020, Karnataka State (hereinafter referred to as Applicants) for registration of a trade mark SAMSON word per se in respect of liquors of all kinds included in Class 33. Applicants claimed proprietorship to the above mark on the basis of user since 10th December 1976 and sought registration of the mark in Part A of the register. Since SAMSON is considered to be a common surname, Applicants were called upon to file evidence of distinctiveness and they filed evidence in support of the user of their mark and also relied on their earlier registration under No. 314838 containing the word SAMSON and device of a human figure depicting the said SAMSON as an additional circumstance for registration of the mark under the present application. There upon, the mark was accepted for registration subject to association with the earlier Regd. Trade Mark No. 314838 and it was accordingly advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 797 dt. 16th August 1982 at page 310.

  2. On 14th December 1982 Champagne Lanson Pere & Fils, a company duly organized under the laws of France of 12 Boulevard Lundy, Reino, (Marue), France (herein after referred to as Opponents) filed a notice of opposition (after duly submitting a request on form TM 44), objecting to registration of Applicants' mark contending mainly, inter alia (1) that opponents are registered proprietors of a trade mark with word LANSON and a device in respect of all kinds of liquors, particularly champagne, wines and sparwling wines and that their mark was duly advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 95 dt 1st July 1951 at page 26: (2) that Opponents have been using the aforesaid mark in India since many years: (3) that Applicants' mark is deceptively similar to Opponents' abovementioned Regd. Trade Mark, with the result that the use of Applicants mark would lead to confusion and deception in the course of trade: (4) that the user claimed by Applicants is too insignificant to give them any benefits to registration, and (5) that in all the foregoing premises, Applicants' mark shall be refused registration under Secs. 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Act.

  3. Applicants filed a counter statement denying all the material averments in the notice of opposition and they strongly refuted conflict or deceptive similarity between the rival marks. In any event, they claimed benefits to registration on the basis of their factual user of impugned mark as well as the associated mark for over 3...

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