Case: Sonye Pharmo-Labs Private Ltd., Bombay Vs Sony Kabushiki Kaisa, Tokyo, Japan. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Mohan Dewan and Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. J.K. Kaul and Mr. Vivek Grover, Advocates
JudgesH. P. Shukla, SETM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 52; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 18, 21
Citation1986 (6) PTC 203 (Reg)
Judgement DateApril 09, 1986
CourtTrademark Tribunal

Judgment:

H. P. Shukla, SETM

  1. This will dispose of an Interlocutory Petition dated 10.3.1986 filed on 18.3.1986 by Sonye Pharmo-Labs Private Limited, Alta Bhawan, 532, Senepati Bapat Marg, Dader Bombay-400 025 (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter.

  2. The matter came up before me for hearing on 4.4.1986, when Shri Mohan Dewan Advocate alongwith Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj Advocate appeared for the Opponents and Mr. J.K. Kaul Advocate alongwith Shri Vivek Grover, Advocate appeared for Sony Kabushiki Kaisa, Tokyo -- 7-35, Ritasingar 6-Chome, Eitashingana Tokyo, Japan being the Applicants (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants".

  3. The Interlocutory Petition in for the purpose of giving a fresh opportunity of hearing to the Opponents.

  4. The facts of the case are as under:-

    On 12.10.1979 the Applicants filed an application being No. 354413 under section 18(1) of the Act for registration of a trade mark consisting of word Sonye in class 9: The said application in due course was advertised in trade marks journal No. 790 dated 2.5.1982 at page 79.

  5. On 6.8.1982 the Opponents lodged a notice of Opposition under section 21 of the Act to the registration of the said application for registration.

  6. On 22.1.1983 the Applicants filed their Counter-statement under Section 21(2) of the Act and Rule 52 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959.

  7. By its latter dated 14.3.1984 the Opponents filed their evidence in support of Opposition under Rule 53(1) by way of an affidavit by J.G. Chovan, the Director and Promoter of the Opponents Company. The affidavit was also supported by documentary evidence marked as A,B,C-1,C-2,E,F,G-1,G-2,G-3.

  8. The applicants by its letter dated 28th February 1985 filed their evidence under Rule 54 by way of an affidavit by Dr. Mitoui the Asstt. General Manager of Licensing and Trade Mark Division of the Applicants' Company alongwith exhibits marked as A & B.

  9. The Opponents thereafter filed evidence in reply under Rule 54 by way of an affidavit by Jayant Dhotoe, One of the Director of the Opponents' Company.

  10. After completion of evidence, the matter was set down for hearing and came up before me on 4.3.1986 at 11.00 A.M. when Mr. J.K. Kaul, Advocate alongwith Shri Vivek Grover, Advocate Appeared for the Applicants and none appeared for the Opponents. I requested both the Advocated for the Applicants to wait for sometime as the Opponents Attorney might have been delayed due to some reason. I waited till 11.40 A.M. As no requested for adjournment was presented or any one appeared on behalf of Opponents, before me till 11.40, I allowed Mr. J.K. Kaul, Advocate to proceed with his arguments ex-parte At 11.55 A.M. Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate came to me alongwith a request on form Tm-56 for adjournment of hearing which has going on ex-parte on receipt of the TM-56. I referred the request for adjournment of hearing to Mr. J.K. Kaul, Advocate who was arguing on behalf of the Applicants. Shri Kaul strongly opposed the adjournment as the request on TM-56 for adjournment of hearing was presented in the midest of arguments and the reason given in the request that the Opponents' counsel was unable to go to Delhi in view of several matters were fixed on that day at Bombay was no valid ground for adjournment, according to Mr. Kaul. I offered to Mr. H. K. Bhardwaj to argue the matter on behalf of the Opponents but he expressed his inability to argue as he was neither equipped with the concerned files nor he was instructed to argue the matter. In these circumstances I disallowed the adjournment of hearing and allowed Mr. J.K. Kaul, Advocate to complete his arguments and thus hearing was concluded on that day and order were reserved. I have not issued any decision in the matter so far.

  11. Now, the Opponents have filed the present Interlocutory Petition to allow them a fresh opportunity of hearing in the matter before the decision is issued. The material ground for fresh hearing in the matter are stated in the following paras of Interlocutory Petition, which reads as under:-

    'However, as our counsel Mr. Mohan Dewan...

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