Case: Glyder Bush Bearings Industries (India), Phagwara Vs Givco-Metal-Worke Daelen & Loos, G.m.b.h. Weisbaden. Trademark Tribunal
Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. K.G. Bansal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. J.K. Kaul, Advocate |
Judges | M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM |
Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1958 - Rule 56 |
Citation | 1984 (4) PTC 277 (Reg) |
Judgement Date | September 24, 1984 |
Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
These proceedings relate to the interlocutory petition filed on 28th May, 1984 by the Applicant in Opposition No. DEL-3681 to Application No. 340807 in Class 7.
A copy of the aforesaid interlocutory petition was sent to the opponents / Respondents for their comments. As the Opponents/Respondents objected to allow the said petition, hearing was fixed for 12th September, 1984. Shri K.G. Bansal, Advocate appeared for the Applicants / Petitioners. Sh. J. K. Kaul, Advocate instructed by S/Shri Remfry and Son, Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys appeared for the Opponents/Respondents.
The prayer contained in the aforesaid petition reads as follows:
.................it is prayed the applicants may be permitted to the further evidence under Rule 56 in view of the larger interest of Justice, equity and good consciously.
The ground stated in the aforesaid petition are stated as follows:
The applicants could not obtain the evidence earlier on account of disturbed situation in the State of Pubjab.
That the evidence to be filed would have an important influence on the result of the case.
That the evidence is to be filed is apparantly of a credible nature.
That the applicants could not procedure and collect the total evidence to be filed in view of the very disturbed situation in the State of Punjab and as such the applicant will further be taking some time to adduce such evidence.
The background of the case is as follows:
The procedure of filing evidence in an opposition proceeding is prescribed in Rules 53 to 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. After obtaining eight months extension of time the Opponents/Respondents filed evidence in support of opposition on 16th July, 1983. On 5th August, 1983, the Applicants/Petitioner's attention was invited to Rule 54. The Applicant/Petitioners sought four months extension of time. Their request was granted and the time was extended upto 16th January, 1984. As the Applicants/Petitioners did not file evidence in support of application within the extended time limit, hearing notice dated 16th February 1984 was issued and hearing was posted for 28th May, 1984. On 28th May, 1984, the Applicants/Petitioners have filed the instant interlocutory petition seeking leave to file 'further evidence, under Rule 56 mainly on the ground that due to disturbed conditions in the State of Punjab the Applicants/Petitioners could not file their evidence.
At the hearing, the learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial