Case: Jeep Corporation, Michigan, 48288, U.S.A. Vs Jeep Indl. Syndicate Limited, Allahabad. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R.B. Lal, Advocate with Smt. Anuradha Salhotra, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate |
| Judges | Om Parkash, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rules 53, 54, 56 |
| Judgement Date | May 25, 1993 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
Om Parkash, DRTM
-
This disposes of an Interlocutory Petition filed on 4th September, 1992 by M/s. Jeep Corporation, 12000 Chrysler Drive, City of Highland Park, Michigan, 48288, U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners/Opponents) in relation to opposition No.DEL-5021.
-
The grounds of the Interlocutory Petition are given, in brief, as under:
(i) That the counter-statement was filed on behalf of the applicants on June 8, 1989 and served on the opponents vide official letter No.TOP/8034 dated July 26, 1989. The said official letter was received by the opponents attorneys on August 1, 1989.
(ii) That the from the counter-statement filed on behalf of the applicants it appeared that the applicants and the opponents predecessor in business had entered into an agreement that the applicants would restrict their use of the trade mark GEEP to non-automobile goods.
(iii) That it will be in the interest of justice if affidavit of Mr. Michsel Admison and Mr. S. Jayaram are taken on record as evidence under Rule 53 or in the alternative under Rule 56.
-
On 5th January, 1993, M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited, 21 South Road, Allahabad, 211001, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents/Applicants) filed their comments to the said Interlocutory Petition. The material points contained in the comments are as under:
(i) That the petitioners/opponents are not entitled to file evidence in support of opposition under Rule 53 and they are also not entitled to take shelter under rule 56 to file evidence.
(ii) That the opponents own showing, the final time upto 1st October, 1991 was granted to the opponents to file evidence in support of opposition under Rule 53. It was made clear in the official letter TOP/6622 dated 19th September, 1991 that "no further extention will be granted". The Registrar of Trade Marks did not grant any further extension of time for filing evidence in support of opposition beyond 1st October, 1991 nor any such request was made as per the information of the applicant.
(iii) That the Interlocutory Petition for filing evidence under Rule 56 is not maintainable as the said petition is belated and has been filed by the opponents with a view to improve upon their case.
(iv) That Rule 56 envisages "Further Evidence" and not "the Evidence". Where the party has chosen not to file any evidence under Rule 53, there is no question of filing any "Further Evidence".
(v) that the evidence now sought to be produced by the Petitioners/opponents cannot be taken on record either under Rule 53 or under Rule 56. The opposition No.DEL-5021 may be deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 53(2) due to non-compliance of Rule 53 by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial