Case: General Engineering Works, Jullunder Vs FMC Corporation, Son Jose, State of California (USA). Trademark Tribunal
| Judges | V. H. Mehta, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1), 12(3), 18(1) |
| Citation | 1981 (1) PTC 183 |
| Judgement Date | March 04, 1975 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
V. H. Mehta, DRTM
-
On 2nd March, 1970, FMC Corporation, of U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants"), made an application, being Application No. 262953, to register in Part A of the Register a trade mark consisting of the word WECO per se in Class 6 in respect of a specification of goods subsequently amended to read as "pipe joints, union joints and parts thereof included in Class 6". The said application was advertised before acceptance under the provision to section 20(1), of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, in Trade Marks Journal No. 567 dated 16th January, 1973 at page 851.
-
On 16th May, 1973, Ram Parkash and others, trading as General Engineering Works, of Jullundur City (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opponents'), filed a Notice of Opposition to the registration of the aforesaid trade mark on the grounds based on the provisions of Sections 9, 11 (a), 11(e), 12 (10 and 18 (1) of the Act.
-
On 21st August 1973, the Applicants filed their Counter-statement denying the various allegations made in the Notice of Opposition. It is stated in the Counter-statement that their trade mark WECO has been in use in India since the year 1959 and that much reputation and valuable goodwill have already accrued to the said mark and to the goods sold thereunder. It is also claimed that the Applicants are entitled to concurrent registration under section 12(3) of the Act by reason of honest concurrent user since the year, 1959.
Neither the Opponents nor the Applicants have filed any evidence in support of their cases but instead on the Notice of Opposition and Counter statement respectively.
-
Eventually the matter was set down for hearing before me on 3rd March, 1975. There was no appearance on behalf of either party. As a matter of fact, they did not even notify on From TM-7 their intention to attend the hearing as required under Rule 59 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. Although there was no appearance of behalf of either party. I have carefully considered all the materials available on record for arriving at my decision.
-
The Applicants are seeking registration for the word WECO per se in Class 6 in respect of "pipe" joints, union joints and parts thereof included in Class 6". They have claimed user of their mark since the year 1959. On the other hand, the Opponents are holding registration for the word VEEKAY in respect of "nuts" (Screw) and bolts Vide-Registered Trade Marks No. 195317. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial