Case: G. S. Taluja and Co., Delhi Vs Shiv Trading Corporation, Ludhiana. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. K. G. Bansal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. K. C. Kareer, Advocate |
| Judges | M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 12(1), 12(3) |
| Citation | 1981 (1) PTC 165 |
| Judgement Date | May 28, 1981 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
On 1st October 1971, Achhru Ram, Jain Paul, Satish Kumar and Shivnandan Parsad, trading as Shiv Trading Corporation, Lakkar Bazar, Ludhiana, Punjab State (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants") made an application, being No. 255307, in Class 7, to register a trade mark 'PORAS' (word per se), in respect of the specification of goods which on subsequent amendment reads as "Sewing Machines and parts thereof (except needles). In due course, the application was advertised before acceptance in the trade Marks Journal No. 635 dated 16th, November, 1975 at page 1316.
On 16th February, 1976, G.S. Taluja & Co., 906- Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006 (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 (stated in the amended Notice of Opposition).
-
That the mark applied for is not registrable under Section 9 of the Act.
-
That the Opponents are the proprietors of the trade mark PARAS (word per se) registered under No. 227600 in Class 7 in respect of Sewing machines and parts thereof (except needles) and therefore the registration of the Applicant's deceptively similar trade mark PORAS for the same goods is prohibited under Section 12(1) of the Act.
-
That the Opponents are using their trade mark since January, 1955 continuously and in the context of prior use and reputation of the said trade mark, the use of the Applicant's deceptively similar trade mark for the same goods would be likely to cause confusion and deception and hence registration is prohibited under section 11(a) of the Act.
-
That the Applicant's mark is not registerable under Section 11(e) of the Act.
-
That the Applicants are not the proprietors of the mark.
The counter-statement filed by the Applicants is one of denial of what is contained in the Notice of Opposition.
The Opponents did not file evidence in support of opposition; but they placed reliance on the contents of the Notice of Opposition. The evidence in support of application consists of four affidavits by S/Shri Achhru Ram, Faquir Chand, Narinder Kumar, Prem Kumar. The Applicants also placed reliance on the evidence filed by them at pre-advertisement stage of their application. The Opponents did not file evidence in reply.
Subsequently by decision dated 29th December, 1980, the Opponents were allowed to amend their Notice of Opposition. The amended Notice of Opposition was...
To continue reading
Request your trial