Case: Colgate Palmolive Company, New York Vs Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., Bombay. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Bharatan, Advocate instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. and For Respondents: Mr. B.N. Poojari, Regd. Trade Marks Agent |
| Judges | K. K. Sharma, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 - Section 97(c); Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 53(2); Civil Procedure Code - Order 47 Rule 1 |
| Judgement Date | March 06, 1992 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
K. K. Sharma, DRTM.
1. This order will dispose of a Review Petition dated 10-10-1990 filed by the opponents namely M/s. Colgate Palmolive Company, 300 Park Avenue, New York (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents) against the order and decision dated 6-8-1990 passed by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks wide which the opposition of the opponents was treated as abandoned by operation of sub Rule 2 of Rule 53 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. The notice of this review petition was given to the respondents (the applicants). The matter came up for hearing before me on 26-9-1991 when Mr. Bharatan, Advocate instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co., appeared for the Review Petitioners (Opponents). Mr. B.N. Poojari, Reg. Trade Marks Agent appeared for the Respondents (the applicants). The grounds on which the review of the order is sought appears in the ground 3 of the review petition and is reproduced below:
"(3) That the opponents have been applying for extension of time for time to time for filing evidence in support of opposition. They would particularly like to draw the Registrar's kind attention their Trade Mark Agent's letter dated 20-3-1989 addressed to the Registrar requesting him not to treat the above opposition as abandoned at any stage.
(4) Again vide their letter dated 22-12-1981 (1991) addressed to the Registrar of Trade Marks the opponents trade mark attorney have consequently stated that the opponents would desire to file their evidence in support of the opposition and had not intention to abandon the opposition at any stage of the proceedings.
(5) As the applicants have made an application for the label mark consisting of the device of Clove which is being commonly used as one of the ingredients in the manufacture of toothpaste by various toothpaste manufacturers, the interest of the other traders and members of the public are affected if the application is allowed to proceed to registration.
(6) Notwithstanding his request the Registrar's Order dated 6-8-1990 treating the above opposition as abandoned has come as a great surprise".
2. It was prayed that the review petition may kindly be allowed and extension of time for filing evidence be granted.
3. On perusal of record I find that applicants filed counterstatement on 13-10-1988 and the same was taken on record on 4-11-1988 and letter was sent to the opponents vide letter No. TOP/4773 dated 4-11-1988 drawing their attention to the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial