Case: Dashmesh Engineering Works, Amritsar Vs Indian Sanitary Improvements, Amritsar. Trademark Tribunal

Party Name:Dashmesh Engineering Works, Amritsar Vs Indian Sanitary Improvements, Amritsar
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. K.G. Bansal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, Advocate
Judges:M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
Issue:Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11 (a), 12(1), 12(3), 18(1)
Judgement Date:May 15, 1987
Court:Trademark Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM

  1. On 27th January, 1981, Massa Singh trading as Indian Sanitary Improvements, 2861 Inside Gate Hakiman, Nai Haveli, Amritsar 143001 (Punjab State) (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant") made an Application being No. 371494B to register the trade mark DANESH (word per se) in class 9, in respect of water-meters.' The Applicant had claimed to have used his trade mark since 1st December, 1980. In due course, the Application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 829 dated 16th December, 1983 at page 1287.

  2. On 12th March 1984, Dasmesh Engineering Works, 2614, Sultan Wind Road, Amritsar (Punjab) (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents" lodged a Notice of Opposition, under Section 21 (1), to the registration of the trade mark applied for on the grounds which are briefly as follows: -

    That the opponents are the proprietors of the trade mark DASMESH word per se registered under No. 240307, in Class 9.

    That the trade mark applied for is deceptively similar to the Opponents' said registered trade mark.

    That the Opponents have used their said trade mark since 1962-63.

    That the Opponents' goods have remarkable sales and that they have spent huge amounts on publicity.

    That the Applicant has adopted the trade mark applied for the trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Opponents' trade mark.

    That the trade mark applied for is a personal name and hence it is not registerable under Section 9.

    That the Application is liable to be refused under Sections 9, 11, 12 and 18 of the Act.

  3. In their counterstatement, the Applicant has stated that the Applicant has filed rectification proceedings in respect of the Opponents' registered trade mark No. 240307. He has further stated that the trade mark applied for is an invented word. He has added that his trade mark is registerable under Section 12 (3).

  4. The evidence in support of opposition consists of one affidavit by Jaswant Singh.

  5. The Applicant has not filed evidence in support of application.

  6. The matter came before me for hearing on 12th May, 1987. Shri K.G. Bansal, Advocate appeared for the Opponents. Shri Kamal Kishore Arora, Advocate appeared for the Applicant.

  7. The Opponents' objection under Section 9 is that the trade mark DANESH is a personal name and hence the same is not registrable under Section 9. Originally, the Application for registration of the trade mark DANESH was made for Part A of the Register. Subsequently, the Application was...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL