Case: Dharam Singh and Sons, Ludhiana Vs H.S. Birdi Industries, Ludhiana. Trademark Tribunal

Party NameDharam Singh and Sons, Ludhiana Vs H.S. Birdi Industries, Ludhiana
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S.C. Chadha, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. D.K. Dhingra, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 - Section 97(c); Civil Procedure Code - Section 35B
Judgement DateJanuary 01, 1988
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM

  1. These proceedings relate to the Review Petition on Form TM-57 filed on 10-8-1987 by the Registered Proprietors of Registered Trade Mark No. 325268, in Class 7, which was under Rectification No. Del-419.

  2. Hearing to consider the said Review Petition took place on 9-6-88. Shri S. C. Chadha, Advocate appeared for the Registered Proprietors/Petitioners. Shri D. K. Dhingra Advocate appeared for the Applicants/Respondents.

  3. The prayer in the said Review Petition is that the decision dated 5-687 issued in Rectification No. Del-419 in respect of Regd. Trade Mark No. 325268 be reviewed.

  4. The grounds of the said Review Petition are as follows:-

    The Applicants'/Respondents' petition dated 7-5-85, which was filed on 13-5-85 was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 250/- "vide order dated 19-9-86. The Applicants/Respondents have not yet paid the said. The said order dated 19-9-86 has therefore become infructuous/non-existent.

    As the costs of Rs. 250/- was not paid, the Registered Proprietors/Petitioners could not instruct their Agent to appear for the hearing fixed for 22-5-87 and file a request for adjournment of the hearing.

    On 5-5-87, Shri S.C. Chadha, Advocate for the Registered Proprietors/Petitioners met Shri D. K. Dhingra, Advocate for the Applicants/Respondents whereupon it was agreed that Shri Dhingra would get the hearing adjourned by sending Form TM-56. After waiting till 21-5-87, the Regd. Proprietors/Petitioners filed a request for adjournment of the hearing. Shri Dhingra, Advocate should have informed the tribunal about the agreement regarding adjournment of the hearing.

    The question whether the Applicants/Respondents were the "person aggrieved" was decided on the basis of a legal notice, which was not a part of the record.

  5. Briefly, the comments sent by the Applicants/Respondents on the said Review Petition, are as follows:-

    Order dated 19-9-86 was not a conditional order, as stated by the Regd. Proprietors/Petitioners.

    There was no agreement between the Advocates of the parties whereby adjournment of the hearing posted for 22-5-87 was to be sought.

    The legal notice, which was taken into consideration while determining the question if the Applicants/Respondents were the "person aggrieved" was a part of the record.

  6. Section 97(c) empowers the Registrar to review his decision. Rule 115 prescribes the procedure for making an Application for review. The Act or the Rules do not specify and ground...

To continue reading

Request your trial