Case: Rupa Chemicals, Vapi, Gujarat Vs Madhusudan Vegetable Product. Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S.B. Krishna, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. R.R. Shah, Advocate
JudgesM. C. Gupta, ARTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 11(a), 12(1), 18(1)
Judgement DateSeptember 18, 1989
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. C. Gupta, ARTM

  1. The brief facts in this case are as follows:

    Application, being Application No. 374974 in class 3 for the registration of trade mark UJALA (label) was filed by the above named applicants for the goods 'washing powder' on 22.4.1981. This application was duly advertised in Part B vide Journal No. 847 dated 16.9.1984.

  2. The opponents on 3.12.1984 filed a notice of opposition on TM-5 opposing the registration of the applicant's trade mark objecting to the registration under Sections 11 (a), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

    The applicants filed a counter-statement on 15.3.1985 denying the contentions of the opponents.

  3. The opponents evidence was taken on record under Rule 53 vide this office latter dated 1.1.1987. At the same time applicants were called to file evidence under Rule 54 as per the procedure. The applicants sought extension of time to file evidence under Rule 54 from time to time and finally a time up to 5th August 1987 was granted for the purpose to the applicants. Thereafter the care was fixed for hearing on 17.12.1987 as the applicants failed to file evidence in support of their application under Rule 54. The request on form TM-7 was filed by both the parties expressing their intention to attend the hearing, fixed. The hearing fixed, a number of times and adjourned, and on 26.10.1988 the applicants' counsel Shri S.B. Krishan, advocate again requested for adjournment to enable the applicants to file evidence in support of the application which was not filed till that date. The extension was granted to the applicants for the purpose and it was made clear to the applicants that they should file the Interlocutory Petition alongwith all the evidences under Rule 54 to enable this Tribunal to dispose of the matter at an early date. In fact on the hearing on 25.10.1988, the applicants under took to file their evidence alongwith an I. P. on the same day or the next day.

  4. Finally, the applicants came up with an Interlocutory Petition on 10.4.1989, which is the subject-matter of this order. It will be important to mention that the hearing, in the meantime, was adjourned from 26.10.1988 to 6.1.1989 and then to 11.4.89.

  5. The grounds taken in the I. P. dated 10.4.89 are that: 1. The evidence in support of the application was not filed as the same was misplaced in the office of the applicant's counsel. It was also stated that the affidavit consisting of evidence of the applicants...

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