Case: Escorts Limited, New Delhi Vs Mahavir Prasad Goel, Bombay. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. V.G. Nair instructed by Mr. Anoop Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. D.R. Thanekar i/by M/s. Muthuswamy, Advocate
JudgesMohideen Basha, JRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 11(a), 12(1), 12(3), 18(1)
Citation1983 (3) PTC 340 (Reg)
Judgement DateSeptember 04, 1979
CourtTrademark Tribunal


Mohideen Basha, JRTM.

On 12th September 1973 Mahavir Prasad Goel, 78/78-A, Abdul Rehman Street Bombay-3, made an application being application No. 290741 in class 14 for the registration of a trade mark consisting of the word Escort in respect of specification which reads as watches, times-pieces, clock and their parts, watch-straps and bracelets for watches all being goods included in class 14. The mark is stated to be proposed to be used on the date of the application. After preliminary scrutiny, and after hearing before the Assistant Registrar of Trade marks on 29th January 1975, the application was advertised before acceptance in the Trade Marks Journal No. 624 dated 1st June 1975 at page 247.

On 14th August 1975, Escorts Limited, Mahajan House, E-1 & 2 New Delhi South Extension Part II, New Delhi entered into opposition to the aforesaid application. The grounds of opposition are as follows:

(1) that they are the proprietors of the Trade Mark 'ESCORTS' which has been registered for various, inclusive of machinery electrical goods, tractors, motor cycles, scooters and X-Ray apparatus ad electro-medical and dental equipments under Nos. 202186 and 217688 in class 7, Nos. 202191, 217595 and 223823 all in class 12, Nos. 202190 in class 11, No. 202187 in class 8, No. 202188 in class 9, No. 202185 in class 5, Nos 202189, 210786 both in class 10 and they have been using in respect of all these goods from quite a long time, having started the manufacture in the years 1944. These goods when brought into the market bear the name-plate of the Opponents i.e. 'Escorts Limited', besides their trade mark ESCORTS. By reason of such use and registration, the use and registration of the applicants marks is likely to deceive or cause confusion under Sections 12(1) and 11(a) of the Act.

(2) that the Applicants are not the proprietors of the mark under Section 18(1) of the Act.

The Applicants filed a counter-statement on 22nd October 1975 in which they averred that they have honestly adopted the mark and the goods set out in the application are the goods of different description from the goods covered by the Opponents' registrations and no confusion is likely under Sections 12(1) and 11(a) of the Act and by virtue of honest adoption of such a non-confusing mark involving no deception on the public, the applicant claims to be proprietor thereof. The rest of the counter-statement is one of denial.

The Opponent filed their evidence by way of affidavit by Charanjit Singh dated 21st May, 1976. The applicants' evidence is by way of affidavit by M.P. Goel dated 4th February 1977. No evidence in reply was filed. The matter was set down for hearing. Both the parties filed requests on form TM 7 signifying their intention to appear at the hearing. Finally the matter came up before me at 11.30 a.m. on Monday the 3rd September 1979 when Shri V.G. Nair...

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