Case: Himalaya Industries, Pune Vs Rajasthan Asbestos Cement Co., Jaipur. Trademark Tribunal

Party NameHimalaya Industries, Pune Vs Rajasthan Asbestos Cement Co., Jaipur
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. H.W. Kane, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. K.B. Marwaha, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade Mark Act
Judgement DateJune 19, 1989
CourtTrademark Tribunal

Judgment:

M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM

These proceedings relate to the interlocutory Petition filed on 12th April 1988 by the Applicants for Rectification in rectification proceeding No. Del-433 in respect of Registered Trade Mark No. 229371 in class 19.

The prayers made in the aforesaid petition are as follows:

Affidavit dated 6.4.88 by Prabhakar Dinkarao Shinde be taken on record as 'evidence in rebuttal' to the Regd. Proprietors/Respondent's evidence in support of registration by condoning the delay in filing the same.

The Regd. Proprietors/Respondents be compelled to discover the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said petition by making an affidavit of documents and produce them before the Registrar of Trade Marks and offer inspection there of to the Applicants/Petitioners.

Request on form TM-16 to bring the names of the present partners of the applicant firm on record should be allowed.

The grounds of the said petition are found in the statement of case annexed to the said petition.

The Applicants/Petitioners' first prayer is based on the ground that Shri Himatlal Pitamabardas Patel, senior partner fell ill and died on 28.10.85 and that there were disputes between the partners and that the wife of the senior partner was indisposed and therefore they could not give full and proper attention to the matter.

The Applicants/Petitioners' second prayer is based on the following grounds:

That the disputes between the parties is mainly regarding the use or non-use of the Registered Trade Mark No. 229371 in the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Goa and that the entire evidence is in the hands of the Regd. Proprietors/Respondents and that in the interest of justice it is necessary that they should disclose whether they are in the possession of the documents enlisted in the said petition and give inspection thereof to the tribunal and to the Applicants/Petitioners.

That the Applicants/Petitioners are some what disadvantageously placed, as they have to make out a case of a negative.

That the said documents will enable the tribunal to verify and decide the correctness of the Registered Proprietors/Respondents' counter-claim regarding the use of their Registered Trade Mark and the territories of such use.

That the Registered Proprietors/Respondents should not have any hesitation or difficulties in producing the said documents since they are required to be maintained in law and any person doing a business lawfully will be maintaining the same.

The Applicants/Petitioner's third prayer is based on the ground that due to the demise of one of the partners. The Applicant firm was reconstituted by taking in the heir of the deceased partner.

The documents furnished by...

To continue reading

Request your trial