Case: Harsanand Ram Dass and Co., Bikaner Vs Bharat Sewing Machine Co., Bikaner. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mrs. Savita Kishore instructed by Shri K.L. Aggarwal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. R.N. Parbhakar, Advocate |
| Judges | M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rules 53 to 60, 94 to 97 |
| Citation | 1983 (3) PTC 309 (Reg) |
| Judgement Date | August 16, 1983 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM.
These proceedings relate to petitions filed by the Regd. Proprietor in Rectification No. DEL--256 in respect of Regd. Trade Mark No. 267037.
The first petition is filed on 27.3.82. The second Petition is filed on 28.8.82.
In the first petition filed on 27.3.82, the Regd. Proprietor/Petitioner has said that a copy of the Application for Rectification and copies of the evidence filed by the Applicants for Rectification/Respondent have not been served on by him. His prayer is that the Applicant for Rectification/Respondent be directed to deliver copies of the said documents to him.
In the second petition filed on 28.8.82, the Regd. Proprietor/Petitioner has prayed that the Counter-statement filed on 28.8.82 and the evidence filed on 28.8.1982 be taken on record. In this petition, the Regd. Proprietor/Petitioner has stated that the Applicant for Rectification/Respondent was directed to deliver a copy of the Application for Rectification and the Statement of the Case. On going through the Applicants of the hearing kept in the file it is seen that no directions were issued.
On the first petition filed on 27.3.1982, the Attorneys for the Applicant for Rectification have sent their comments vide their letter dated 29th March, 1982. These comments are as follows:
-
That the Interlocutory petition is belated and the Regd. Proprietor/Petitioner is trying to re-open the case from the initial stage.
-
That a copy of the Application for Rectification and a copy of evidence, together with a copy of TM--16 filed by the Applicant were sent to the Regd. Proprietor/Petitioner or his authorised Agents and that the Applicant for Rectification/Respondent holds a postal acknowledgement.
-
That the Petition does not contain qualified Attorneys and therefore it should be dismissed.
In affidavit dated 30th December, 1982 by Moman Ram Sharma, the Applicant for Rectification/Respondent has deposed that copies of the affidavit and evidence have been sent to the Regd. Proprietor's Attorneys and that a postal receipt is in his possession.
Rules 94 to 97 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 deal with the procedure for rectification proceedings instituted in the Trade Marks Registry. According to Rule 95, a copy each of the Applicant for Rectification and Statement of the Case shall be transmitted forthwith by the Registrar to the Regd. Proprietor. According to Rule 95, within two months from the receipt by a Regd. Proprietor...
To continue reading
Request your trial