Case: Sigma Laboratories, Bombay Vs Tamilnadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Limited, Madras. Trademark Tribunal
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Mohan Dewan, Advocate or R.K. Dewan & Co. and For Respondents: Mr. M.K. Rao, Advocate |
| Judges | T. R. Subramanain, DRTM |
| Issue | Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11(a), 18(1) |
| Judgement Date | April 06, 1987 |
| Court | Trademark Tribunal |
Judgment:
On 1st March 1982, an application was filed being application no. 387029 by M/s. Tamilnadu Dadha Pharmaceutical Limited, 10 Jeyporenagar, Madras-600 086 (hereinafter referred to as Applicants) seeking registration of a trade mark in Part A of the register in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations for human use under class 5. The mark was proposed to be used and the Applicants' mark consists of the word PANZOLE. The application was thereafter ordered to be advertised before acceptance and it was accordingly advertised in Trade Marks Journal no 852 dt. 1st December 1984 at page 581.
On 15th January 1985, a notice of opposition was filed by Sri Dilip S. Coulagi and another trading as Sigma Laboratories Plot no. 43 (South), Wadala, Bombay-400031 (hereinafter referred to as Opponents) objecting to the registration of Applicants' mark on ground, inter alia-(1) that the Opponents are the proprietors of trade mark under registration no. 323800 dt. 15th March 1977 in respect of pharmaceutical preparations in class 5 and comprises of the word PENZYL; (2) that the said trade mark is distinctive and exclusively identified with the goods and merchandise of Opponents and is already well known to the trade and public in India; (3) that the Applicants mark is deceptively similar to the Opponents' aforesaid mark and the use of the impugned mark is likely to deceive and / or cause confusion in the trade and in the minds of public in general; (4) that accordingly the Applicants' mark shall be refused registration under Secs. 9, 11, 12 and 18 of the Act.
Applicants filed a counter-statement denying all the material averments in the notice of opposition and contended that they have no knowledge of the Opponents mark. They also submitted that there is no conflict between the rival marks.
The Opponents filed an affidavit of Shri Dilip S. Coulagi, a partner of Opponents' firm as evidence in support of opposition, while the Applicants filed an affidavit of Sri G.P. Venkateswaran, Secretary of the Applicants' firm as evidence in support of application, Opponents filed their evidence in reply in the form of an affidavit from Shri Dilip S. Coulagi.
When the matter ultimately came up for hearing before me on 2nd November 1987, Shri Mohan Dewan of M/s. R. K. Dewan & Co. appeared on behalf of Opponents, while Shri M.K. Rao, Advocate Kamath & Kamath, appeared on behalf of Applicants.
The issue in these proceedings arises under Secs. 9, 11, 12 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial