Case: Escort Limited, New Delhi Vs Escort Engineering Corporation, Rajkot. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Anoop Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. W. S. Kane and Mr. M. J. Trivedi, Advocate instructed by Shri J. T. Trivedi, Adv.
JudgesV. H. Mehta, JRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 11(a), 11(e), 12(1), 12(3), 18(1)
Citation1981 (1) PTC 223
Judgement DateSeptember 15, 1978
CourtTrademark Tribunal


V. H. Mehta, JRTM

  1. On 22nd April, 1975, Manilal Mavjibhai Patel, trading as Escort Engineering Corporation, 3 Bhaktinagar Station Plot, Rajkot 360002, Gujarat State (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant") made an application being Application No. 304823 to register in Part A of the Register a trade mark consisting of the word ESCORT written in a special script in Class 7 in respect of specification of goods which was subsequently amended to read as "Diesel oil engines (nor for land vehicles) and parts thereof included in Class 7". On preliminary examination of the Application the objection was raised on the ground of conflict with trade mark No. 217687 of Escorts Limited, New Delhi. However on the strength of evidence filed the said Application was advertised as accepted in the Trade Marks Journal No. 654 dated 1st September, 1976 at page 515.

  2. On 2nd November, 1976, Escorts Limited, E-1 & 2, Mahajan House, N. D. S. E. II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") filed a Notice of Opposition to the registration of the aforesaid trade mark on the grounds that the Opponents are manufacturers of various types of machinery including agricultural implements of larger kind, agricultural machinery and parts thereof, tractors, motor cycle etc. that the Opponents are registered proprietors of a number of trade marks in various classes and for different types of goods in respect of trade mark ESCORT and ESCORTS; that all the goods manufactured by the Opponents and brought into the market bear the name plate of Opponents "ESCORTS LIMITED" besides the trade mark ESCORT (S); that the mark submitted for registration is exactly similar to the Registered Trade Mark of the Opponents' that the goods of the Applicant's and the goods for which the Opponents have achieved very handsome reputation and valuable goodwill for the trade mark ESCORT (S); that the registration of the mark would contravene the provisions of Sections 11 (a), 11(e), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

  3. On 18th December, 1976, the Applicant filed his counterstatement denying the allegations made in the Notice of opposition. The Applicant also submitted that he is entitled to the registration of the mark applied for under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act.

  4. The evidence in support of Opposition consists of an affidavit by Charanjit Singh, Vice-President and Secretary of the Opponent Company, supported by affidavits...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT