Case: Som Brothers & Co., Kotkapura Vs Ram Lal Hari Chand & Sons, Kotkapura. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S.C. Chadha, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Anoop Singh, Advocate with Shri D.K. Handa, Regd. Trade Marks Agent
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Rule, 1959 - Rules 53, 54, 55; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 21, 97(c)
Citation1989 (9) PTC 47 (Reg)
Judgement DateDecember 14, 1988
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM

These proceedings relate to the Review Petition filed on 4.8.1987.

Hearing to consider the said Review Petition was appointed for 25.10.1988. Shri S. C. Chadha, Advocate appeared for the Opponents/Petitioners, Shri Anoop Singh Advocates and Shri D. K. Handa, Registered Trade Marks Agent appeared for the Applicants/Respondents.

The grounds sated in the statement of the Case, enclosed to the said Review Petition are as follows: -

"The Opponents filed a request on 6th July, 1987 for extention of time of two months for filing evidence in support of the opposition.

The Opponents have received order for costs instead of getting any order on the application for extention of time.

It has also been revealed that the applicants have filed a TM-16 for which no order has been made till today.

Since the Opposition cannot be abandoned because of the special circumstances of the case, therefore, it is requested that the case may be reviewed".

The Applicants/Respondents have given their comments on the said Review Petition. They have objected to allow the said petition. Their comments are briefly as follows:

The Applicants/Respondents deny that any request on Form TM-56 for extention of time was pending before the issue of the Order dated 6.7.1987.

Order dated 6.7.1987. was merely an 'Order for Costs". According to the decision in Hindustan Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1978-79 IPLR 148 at p. 153), Rule 53 (2) operates automatically and, therefore, Order dated 6.7.1987 was correctly issued.

The Review Petition does not contain any of the grounds, mentioned in paragraphs 242 of Narayanan on Trade Marks and passing off, 3rd edn.

The Opponents/Petitioners have filed one affidavit-dated 12.7.1988 of Shri S. C. Chadha. In reply, the Applicants/Respondents have filed an affidavit dated 25.10.1988 by Shri Ashok Kumar.

The facts leading to the issue of the "Order dated 6.7.87. which is sought to be reviewed, are briefly as follows:-

Under Section 21(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 1958, a partner ship firm consisting of Rakesh Kumar and others, trading as Som Brothers and Co. Factory Road, Kotkapura, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents Petitioners" lodged a Notice of Opposition to the registration of the trade mark 'PHUL DAN' applied for registration in application No. 398202B by Hari Chand and others, trading as Ram Lal Hari Chand and Sons, Satta Bazar, Kotkapura, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the applicants/Respondents"). According to Section 21(2) of the Act, the applicants/Respondents had to file their counter-statement. According to Section 21(3), the Registrar had to serve a copy of the Counter-statement. According to Section 21 (4), the partion have to submit evidence in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time. The time limit of filing evidence by the parties...

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