Case: Eagle Flask Pvt. Ltd., Telegaon -Dabhada (Pune) Vs Laboratories Vifor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. Trademark Tribunal

Party Name:Eagle Flask Pvt. Ltd., Telegaon -Dabhada (Pune) Vs Laboratories Vifor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay
Counsel:For Appellant: Mr. M.R. Nair instructed by M/s. R.K. Dewan & Co., Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Vijay F. Shah, Advocate
Judges:K. K. Sharma, ARTM
Issue:Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 18 (1), 18(4)
Judgement Date:December 01, 1989
Court:Trademark Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

K. K. Sharma, ARTM

  1. On 3rd March, 1981, Laboratories Vifor (India) Pvt. Ltd., at 85, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Bombay-400 018 (hereinafter referred to as the Applicants) filed an application under Application No. 372980 in class 21 to register a trade mark 'VACUFLAC' in respect of specification of goods which was amended to read as house hold containers, hollowware (enamelled, plastic or other synthetic materials), bottles, bowls (glass, plastic or other synthetic materials) and glassware and plasticware all being goods included n class 21. In due course of time the application was ordered to be advertised before acceptance and was accordingly advertised in Trade Mark Journal No. 836 dated Ist April, 1984.

  2. On 5th July, 1984 Eagle Flask Pvt. Ltd. having place of business at Eagle state, Eagle Flask Road, Talegoan-Dabhada-410507, Distt. Pune (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents) filed notice of opposition inter alia on the following grounds:

    (1) That the mark is open for objection under Section 9 of the Act are the mark is neither adopted to distinguish nor capable of distinguishing the goods in respect of which the applicants is seeking registration..

    (2) The term 'VACUFLAC' is nothing but an obvious abbreviation of the descriptive term 'VACUVFLASK'. If the applicant is granted registration to trade mark VACUFLAC, it would undoubtedly affect the interest of other manufacturers of vacuum flasks and would inevitably interfere with their rights to the legitimate use of the descriptive term VACUUM FLASK in respect of their products.

    (3) That the use of the term VACUFLAC by the applicant is in respect of the goods or in all of the goods specified in the impugned application is likely to cause confusion and/or deception insofar as the consumers and/or traders would be under the impression that the applicant's goods are flasks with two walls separated by a vacuum, the existence of which keep the contents of the inner receptacle at their original temperature for a considerable period. It was also alleged that the specification of goods consist of "house hold containers, hollowware (enamelled, plastic or other synthetic materials), bottles, bowls (glass, plastic or other synthetic materials), and glassware and plasticware which for obvious reasons cannot be called 'VACUUM FLASKS'. The use of the mark VACUFLAC will enable the applicant and /or his dealers to pass of the aforesaid products of the applicant and as by Vacuum...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL