Case: Fit Tight Nuts and Bolts Ltd., Bombay Vs Perfect Auto Traders, Ludhiana. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Anoop Singh, Advocate and Mr. D. K. Dhingra, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1), 12(3)
Citation1981 (1) PTC 170 (Del)
Judgement DateMay 15, 1981
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM

  1. On 13th October, 1976, Krishan Kumar Dhingra and Rajinder Kumar Dhingra, trading as Perfect Auto Traders, Oswal Market, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana -- 141003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants" made an application, being No. 319454 B, to register a trade mark label containing the words "PAT FIT TIGHT", in Class 12, in respect of "Parts included in Class 12 of motorland vehicles". In due course, the application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, No. 716 dated 1st April, 1979 at page 1143.

  2. On 16th June, 1979, Fit Tight Nuts & Bolts Ltd., Old Ashram, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Bombay -- 40093 (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") lodged a Notice of Opposition, under section 21(1), to the registration of the aforesaid trade mark on the following grounds: -

  3. That the mark applied for is not registrable under Section 9 of the Act.

  4. That the Opponents are the proprietors of the trade mark consisting of the device of a hand holding a spanner and the word 'FITITE', registered under number 239007, in Class 6, for "fasteners, nuts and bolts, all the foregoing being metal goods" and therefore the registration of the Applicants' deceptively similar mark is prohibited under Section 12 (1) of the Act.

  5. That the Opponents have been using the trade marks "FIT TITE" and "FIT TIGHT" in respect of high tensile precision nuts and bolts which are used in various industries, such as automobile industry and that having regard to the reputation acquired by the Opponents in respect of their trade mark and trading style "FIT TITE" or "FIT TIGHT", the use of the Applicant's deceptively similar mark for similar goods would be likely to cause deception or confusion and hence the registration of the mark is prohibited under Section 11 (a) of the Act.

  6. That the Applicants have disclaimed the exclusive use of the words "FIT TIGHT' and that the main and essential feature of the Applicant's mark is the word "PAT" which is a short form of the word "patent" and that in actual use the Applicants use the trade mark "FIT TIGHT", though the same is disclosed and therefore the mark applied for is disentitled to protection in the court of law.

  7. That the Applicants are not the proprietors of the mark and that the user claimed by them is denied.

  8. In their Counterstatement filed on 28th September, 1979, the Applicants stated that the word 'PAT' of their trade mark is coined from the initial letters of their trading style and that they are the proprietors of the trade mark "PAT FIT TIGHT" included in a circle depicting therein the rays of sun and the same mark has been registered in Class 12 under number 283091 B for "parts of motorland vehicles" and that the Opponents have disclaimed the word "FITTITE" in their...

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