Case: Hindustan Lever Limited, Bombay Vs Bawa Prefumery Works, Delhi. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. V.G. Nair, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Anoop Singh with Mr. H.P. Singh, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 11(a), 18(1)
Citation1983 (3) PTC 57 (Reg)
Judgement DateDecember 24, 1982
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM

  1. On 18th February, 1977, Jasbir Singh and Balvinder Singh, trading as Bawa Perfumery Works, 1411, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants") made an Application being No. 323194, for registration of a trade mark 'ANIK'(word per se), in Class 3, in respect of "dhoop and agarbati in Class 3". In due course, the Application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 704 dated 1st October, 1978 at Page 783.

    On 29th December, 1978, Hindustan Lever Limited, of Hindustan Lever House, 165/166 Backbay Reclamation, Bombay 400 200 (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:--

  2. That the Opponents are the proprietors of the trade mark 'ANIK' word per se, registered under No. 215290, as of 2nd May 1963, in respect of "ghee and butter and other milk products for human consumption".

  3. That the Opponents have registered a label containing the word 'ANIK' as its essential feature, under number 220429, as of 5th February, 1964, in respect of "ghee and butter and other milk products for human consumption."

  4. That by reason of the extensive use of the trade mark ''ANIK', since 1965, in respect of "ghee and milk products", the trade mark ''ANIK' is exclusively identified with the Opponents and their goods and therefore if any one sees the mark ANIK on any goods he would think that the goods are the Opponents' goods or at any rate he would wonder whether the goods are the Opponents' goods or connected with the Opponents.

  5. That as ''ANIK' is the Opponents' trade mark it is not adapted to distinguish the Applicants' goods.

  6. That the Applicants cannot claim to be the proprietors of the trade mark ''ANIK'.

  7. That the registration of the mark applied for will be contrary to the provisions of Sections 9, 11(a) and 18(1) of the Act.

  8. That since the Applicants have copied the Opponents' trade mark, the Registrar's discretion should be exercised against the Applicants.

  9. That the Applicants will not be prejudiced since the Applicant's mark is proposed to be used.

  10. In their counter-statement, the Applicants have stated that ''ANIK' is a dictionary word and therefore the Opponents cannot claim monopoly rights. Rest of the counter-statement is one of denial of all the allegations contained in the Notice of Opposition.

  11. The evidence in support of Opposition consists of main affidavit of Shri Srinivasa Padmanabhan and three supporting affidavits by Shri Raghunath Vishwanath Deshpande, Mrs. Mildred Nair and Liladhar Karamsi Haria.

  12. The evidence in support of application consists of Shri Jasbir Singh, a partner of the Applicant firm.

  13. The evidence in reply consists of one affidavit dated 10th September, 1981 by Shri Srinivasa Padmanabhan.

  14. The matter come up before me for a hearing on 8th December, 1982. Shri V.G. Nair, Advocate instructed by S/Shri DePenning & DePenning, Patent and Trade...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT