Case: Dolphin Laboratories Pvt. Limited, Calcutta Vs Ranbaxy Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Anoop Singh, Advocate, instructed by S/Shri D.P. Ahuja & Co. |
| Judges | M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Section 46 |
| Citation | 1984 (4) PTC 176 (Reg) |
| Judgement Date | June 28, 1984 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
-
These proceedings relate to the Application for Rectification made on 27the September, 1979 by Dolphin Laboratories Private Limited, 41/2B, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-700020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants" to rectify the Register by expunging therefrom the entry relating to Regd. Trade Mark No. 255389, in Class 5, in the name of Ranbaxy Laboratories Pvt., Okhla Industries Area, New Delhi-110020 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regd. Proprietors). The trade mark in question consists of the word 'AMFEDOL' and it is registered in class 5 in respect of "medicinal preparations". Briefly, the grounds contained in the Application for Rectification are as under:-
-
That the Applicants use the trade mark 'AMPIDOL' (word per se) and that their Application No. 337236 therefor is pending consideration and that the Regd. Proprietors have given a notice to withdraw the said Application stating that they would oppose the same on the ground of their registration under No. 255389 and therefore the Applicants are the 'person aggrieved'.
That the said trade mark was registered without any bona fide intention on the part of the Applicants to use the same in respect of the goods for which the same was registered.
That the Registered Proprietors have not used the trade mark 'AMFEDOL' during the continuous period of five years or more prior to one month before the date of the Application for Rectification.
That the said registered trade mark is liable to be removed in the exercise of the Registrar's discretion.
Pursuant to Rule 94 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, a copy of the Application for Rectification together with the statement of the case was sent to the Registered Proprietors vide office letter No. 5851 dated 13th December, 1979. According to Rule 95, the Regd. Proprietor should have filed their counterstatement by 15th February, 1980 Instead of Filing their counterstatement, the Regd. Proprietors have filed seventeen requests for extension of time. The time for filing counterstatement was extended upto 15th December, 1980. Despite grant of extension of thirty four months (excluding the prescribed period of two months), the Regd. Proprietors did not file their counterstatement.
The Applicants for Rectification filed on affidavit dated 5th May, 1983 by Sujit Roy. The said affidavit is accompanied by exhibits marked as A, B, C & D.
The Regd. Proprietors did not file evidence in support of...
To continue reading
Request your trial