Case: K. Nathalal and Company, Bombay Vs Meera Metal Industries, Bombay. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. S.B. Shah, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Mohan Dewan, Advocate |
| Judges | K. K. Sharma, SETM |
| Issue | Trade Mark Act |
| Judgement Date | May 03, 1988 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
K. K. Sharma, SETM
-
This order will dispose of Interlocutory Petition dated 4-8-1987 and 23-11-87 and request on form TM-16 dated 26-11-1987 filed by the opponents. The notice of these Interlocutory Petitions and request on form TM-16 was served upon the applicants and they have submitted their comments. The matter came up for disposal before me on 13-4-88 when Shri S. B. Shah, Advocate appeared for the opponents and Sh. Mohan Dewan appeared for the applicants.
-
First I take up Interlocutory Petition dated 23-11-1987. By this Interlocutory Petition the opponents prayed that copies of Annexures 'A' & 'B' purported to have been filed alongwith affidavit of Shri Bharat Liladhar under Rule 54 to be supplied to them. At the beginning of the hearing itself Mr. Mohan Dewan volunteered to supply the copies of Annexures 'A' & 'B' referred to in the affidavit of Shri Bharat Liladhar. Mr. S. B. Shah agreed to withdraw the Interlocutory Petition, accordingly Interlocutory Petition is treated as withdrawn and the applicants are directed to supply copies of Annexure 'A' & 'B' free of cost to the opponents within 30 days from the date of announcement of the order i.e., 13-4-1988.
-
Now I take up opponents Interlocutory Petition dated 4-8-1987. The opponent's case is that on 4th July 1986 applicants filed an Interlocutory Petition enclosing there with 17 affidavits. The Registrar sent a notice of this request to the opponents on 18th July 1986. The opponent's agent on 5-8-86 informed the Registrar objecting to the applicant's Interlocutory Petition. On 23-12-1986 a letter bearing No. TOP/6851 fixing date of hearing on 12th June 1987 with the endorsement that the opponents have not filed rebuttal evidence was received by the opponent's agent. It is opponent's contention that:
(i) No letter was received from the Trade Marks Registry calling upon opponents to file rebuttal evidence.
(ii) That the said 17 affidavits have been taken on record without hearing having taken place under Section 92 while disposing of applicant's Interlocutory Petition dated 4th July, 1986. The opponents filed TM-7 on 9-1-1987 and also opponents objected to the said 17 affidavits having been taken on record vide their letter dated 12-1-1987. On 3rd June, 1987 opponent's Agent wrote a letter to the Registrar enclosing therewith an affidavit of S. K. Vakaria and Shri R. G. Agarwal in reply to the opponent's additional evidence. The hearing in the matter was fixed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial