OA/78/2004/TM/DEL and Order No. 157 of 2015. Case: Koninklijke Philips Electronics Vs Kay Kay Home Appliances Pvt. Limited and Ors.. Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Case NumberOA/78/2004/TM/DEL and Order No. 157 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Deb Jyoti Ghosh
JudgesK.N. Basha, J. (Chairman) and Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Member (T)
IssueTrade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 11(1), 11(a), 12, 12(1), 18(1), 19, 34, 46
Judgement DateJuly 20, 2015
CourtIntellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases


K.N. Basha, J. (Chairman), (Circuit Sitting At Delhi)

  1. The challenge in this appeal is against the order dated 14/06/2002 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi dismissing the opposition filed by the first respondent in DEL/T-582/516710 and consequently allowing the registration of the first respondent/applicant before the Registrar in application No. 516710 in Class 11.

  2. Mr. Deb Jyoti Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside as the learned Deputy Registrar has ignored the substantial contentions raised by the appellant and also over looked the evidence adduced by them. It is contended that the appellant's company is a oldest and world renowned group of companies under the name and style as PHILIPS. It is submitted that the appellant has got the registration for the trade mark PHILIPS in respect of validity of goods viz. radios, tape recorders, record players, electrical apparatus, bulbs, lights and light fittings, domestic appliances, mixtures, grinders etc. It is contended that the appellant obtained the name and fame and world wide reputation in respect of their mark.

  3. The learned counsel would also cite the trade mark registered by them through out the world placing reliance on the materials produced by them. The learned counsel would contend that the registration of the impugned trade mark PHILIPS in class 11 in respect of hurricane lantern is in clear violation, the provision of the trade mark. The learned counsel would also pointed out that the first respondent manufacture the lighting apparatus as that of the appellant dealing in lighting goods and apparatus and as such it would cause confusion among the consumers and as such the first respondent cannot be allowed to use the impugned trade mark which is deceptively similar to that of the appellant's trade mark in their trade mark hurricane lantern.

  4. The learned counsel in support of his contention would also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 1994 PTC 287 - Daimler Benz Aktiegesselschaft and Another v. Hydo Hindustan dated 10/11/1993 in I.A. No. 5843 of 1993 in Suit Non. 1388 of 1993.

  5. We have given our careful consideration to the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, New...

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