Case: Flower Tobacco Co., Moradabad Vs Mohd. Sachin Mohd. Qaism, Moradabad. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Raj K. Anand, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. B. K. Mathur, Advocate |
| Judges | M. R. Bhalerao, ARTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Section 21(2); Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 53 |
| Citation | 1981 (1) PTC 9 |
| Judgement Date | September 17, 1980 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. R. Bhalerao, ARTM
-
These proceedings relate to the Interlocutory Petition filed on 18th June, 1980 by Iffat Jahan, Saral Bazar, Abdul Mussadir and Abdul Basser, tradings as Flower Tabacco Company, Faiz Ganj Road, Moradabad-244 001 (hereinafter referred to as the Applicants / Petitioners) who have applied for registration of a trade mark-------------------with a device, in Class 34 under Application No. 339005. The Respondent is Mohammad Qasim trading as Mohd. Beaching Mohd. Qasim, Amroha Gate, P. O. Moradabad (Uttar Pardesh) (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents / Respondent") who has opposed the Application No. 339005 under Opposition No. DEL-3027.
-
The main part of the petition read as follows:
"Our clients submit under Rule 53, it is mandatory for the opponents to deliver to the applicants copies of any evidence that the Opponents left with the Registry.
No copy of opponents' evidence has been delivered to us. Therefore the opposition is deemed to have been abandoned under the said Rule 53".
-
In support of the said petition, the Applicants/Petitioners have filed an affidavit dated 12th July, 1980 by Abdul Musavir, who has deposed as follows:
"I am well acquainted with the facts relating to this opposition proceeding.
I depose that the Opponents Mohd. Hashim, Mohd. Qasim, Amroha Gate, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, have not delivered to us nor to our attorney copies of any evidence ever filed by them in support of opposition.
-
The comments on the above petition sent by the Opponent / Respondent were received in the office on 17th July, 80. The matter came up before us for a hearing on 6the September, 1980. Shri Raj K. Anand, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Applicants/Petitioners. Shri B. N. Mathur, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Opponent/Respondent.
-
The learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioners pointed out that a copy of the comments was not received by them. However, at the hearing the learned counsel for the Opponent / Respondent reiterated the same points which were included in the comments.
-
The learned counsel for the Applicants/Petitioners argued that according to Rule 53(1), the Opponent/Respondent should have done two acts within the prescribed time limit of two months; namely (1) filing of evidence with the Register and (2) delivery of the copies of evidence to the Applicants/Petitioners and as the Opponent/Respondent has only done the first act within the time limit, Rule 53(2) should come into...
To continue reading
Request your trial