Case: Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay Vs General Detergents, Vapi. Trademark Tribunal
|Party Name:||Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay Vs General Detergents, Vapi|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Mr. Bharatan instructed by M/s Crawford Bayley & Co., Advocate and For Mr. Mohan Dewan with Mr. M.R. Nair, Advocates|
|Judges:||K. K. Sharma, DRTM|
|Issue:||Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1), 18(1), 18(4)|
|Citation:||1992 (12) PTC 11 (Reg)|
|Judgement Date:||October 18, 1991|
K. K. Sharma, DRTM.
On 17-1-1975 (i) Rasik Karsondas Tejura, (ii) Mrs. Ramkuvar Karsondas Tejura and (iii) Mrs. Nirupma Kishore Tejura trading as General Detergents, 25/26 Vapi Industrial Estate, Vapi Gujarat State (hereinafter referred to as the Applicants) filed an application under Application No. 302184 in class 3 to register a composite label mark having letter 'T' placed around the trading style 'Tejura's' with a central 'T' and word TEJ in respect of specification of goods which reads as 'Toilet and washing soaps, cleaning powder and detergents not for industrial use or for manufacturing processes'. In due course of time the application was accepted for registration subject to disclaimer of the letters TEJ and subject to association with Application No. 298174. The application was accordingly advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 660 of 1-12-1976.
On 26-2-1977 Hindustan Lever Ltd., of Hindustan Lever House, Backbay Reclamation, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents) filed notice of opposition inter alia on the following grounds:--
(1) That the Opponents have since past many years continuously used throughout India trade mark "WHEEL" word and "WHEEL", device and the said marks are exclusively associated by the public and trade with the opponents goods.
(2) That the Opponents have obtained registration of the "WHEEL" word or device in different classes. The particulars of the such registrations was provided in para 2 of the Notice of Opposition.
(3) That the Opponents have acquired a valuable goodwill in respect of the said mark and said mark have come to cannot be denote to the trade and public that the goods sold under the said marks are well-known goods of the Opponents.
(4) That the mark propounded for registration by the applicants is deceptively similar to the Opponents said trade marks and since they are seeking registration in respect of same goods or goods of the same description, the application is open to objection under Sections 11, 12 of the Act. The objection was also raised under Sections 9 and 18(1) of the Act. It was prayed that the application be refused registration.
The applicants filed the counter-statement which consists of general denials. However, it was specifically pleaded that they are established manufacturers and merchants dealing in manufacturing and marketing "Toilet and washing soaps, cleaning powder and detergents since the year 1972", and that as their house mark they adopted the emblem comprising of the letter 'T' placed around the trading style 'Tejura' with a central 'T' and the aforesaid trade mark of the applicants is registered under registration No. 298174. It was pleaded that they have also been marketing one of their manufacture under the brand name TEJ and it has also applied for registration of the composite mark i.e., to say their house mark and the trade mark TEJ and the present application comprises the registered house mark together with the trade mark TEJ. The aforesaid house mark is also protected under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 under No. A-12033/74 dated 6-11-1974. It was prayed that the opposition be dismissed and the cost of the proceedings may be awarded.
The evidence in support of the opposition consists of an affidavit of Srinivasa Padmanabhan, Head of the Legal Department of the Opponents. The evidence in support of the application consists of an affidavit of Shri Rasik Karsondas Tejura alongwith Ex's 1(a) to (s) and Ex.B. The applicants have also filed affidavits of Smt. Nirupma K. Tejura Partner of General Detergents (together with Ex. A, B & C) of Shri Sitaram and Shashikant R. Tanna and Shri Liladhar Rayabhai. The evidence in reply consists of an affidavit of Shri Srinivasa Padmanabhan...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL