Case: Pals Distilleries Ltd., Bangalore Vs Dahisar Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. M.R. Nair, Advocate |
| Judges | T.R. Subramanian, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 12(1), 18(1) |
| Judgement Date | December 24, 1991 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
T. R. Subramanian, DRTM.
-
On 27th October, 1983 an application was filed under Application No. 412480 by M/s. Dahisar Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Applicants) in class 33 seeking registration of a mark in Part A of the register in respect of "Liquors including country liquors included in class 33. The applicants mark comprises of the word NORTH POLE and was proposed to be used on the date of the application. The application was accepted for registration in Part B and the same was advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 963 dated 16-9-1989 at page 783.
-
On 9-11-1989 a notice of opposition was filed by Pals Distilleries Ltd., Jalahalli Camp Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560 022 (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents objecting to the registration of the applicants mark on the grounds inter alia:--
-
That the Opponents carry on an established business as manufacturer of liquors.
-
That the opponents are the proprietors of a trade mark NORTH PORT for wines, spirits and liquors which has been registered under No. 413955 in class 33 and advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 932 dated 1-4-1988 at page 50.
-
That the impugned mark of the applicant is deceptively/confusingly similar to their trade mark.
-
Accordingly the applicants mark should be refused registration under Sections 9, 11(a), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)
-
The applicants filed a counter-statement denying all the material averments made in the notice of opposition and submitted that they have adopted the mark NORTH POLE after doing search in the records of the Trade Marks Registry. They also submitted that the opponents Application No. 413955 was filed on 3-12-1983 whereas the applicants application was filed dated 27-10-1983 that is much earlier than that of the opponents application. They also submitted that the opponents have stated in their application No. 413955 that the mark was proposed to be used on the date of application i.e., 3-12-1983. They contended that in view of the opponents application being subsequent to the application the opposition should be dismissed.
-
The opponents thereafter filed an affidavit of Shri K.P. Balasubramaniam, Director of the Company as evidence in support of the opposition. The applicants did not file any evidence in support of the application. The matter came up for hearing before me on 16-1-1991 when Shri M.R. Nair Advocate appeared...
To continue reading
Request your trial