Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

OA/2/2013/TM/AMD. Case: Vardhman Trading Vs 1. J.M. Spices Trader 2. The Registrar of Trade Marks. Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberOA/2/2013/TM/AMD
Party NameVardhman Trading Vs 1. J.M. Spices Trader 2. The Registrar of Trade Marks
CounselFor Appellant: Jagdish Roy Parashar, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Rajendra H. Bhansali
JudgesShri K.N. Basha, Chairman and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Technical member (Trade Marks)
IssueTrade Marks Act 1999 - Section 57
Judgement DateDecember 17, 2015
CourtIntellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Order:

Shri K.N. Basha, Chairman

  1. The order under challenge is dated 0 7.12.2011 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks against the cancellation of the registration certificate No. 810509 under Class 30 in application No.1602046 filed by the appellant herein.

  2. The appellant filed an application for registration of Trade mark ''MAX'' (label) with device bearing application No.1602046 in class 30. On receipt of the application examination report was issued on 08.07.2008 to the appellant and a reply dated 15.07.2008 was given by the appellant. It is seen that the said application was purported to have been published in Trade Marks journal No.1402 but in fact the said application was not published in the said journal.

    The said factor was brought to the notice of the second respondent as per the submission of the learn ed counsel for the first respondent. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the registration certificate was issued to the appellant on 19.03.2010. Thereafter, a reminder letter was sent by the first respondent to the secon d respondent on 26.04.2010. The first respondent also filed rectification application to registered mark No.1602046 in Class 30. As a result, the second respondent has issued notice under Section 57 (class 4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. (hereinafter ref erred to as the Act.). The appellant has also filed a written counter submission to notice under section 57 in class 4 on 08.04.2011. Hearing notice was sent and heard on 13.04.2011. Notice of rectification was also issued to the appellant on 08.06. 201 1. TM -- 6 was filed by the appellant in rectification application on 01.08.2011 and the impugned order was also passed on 07.12.2011. 3. The appellant challenging the above said impugned order, wherein it is stated that the Impugned mark

    was published by the second respondent in the official journal entry No.1402. It is stated by the appellant that have incurred heavy expenses by printing the trade mark and after 90 days section 57, class(4) notice was served on them. It is stated by the appellant in the grounds they have also submitted their reply to Section 54, Class (4) notice. It is further stated in the grounds of appeal that the Assistant Registrar deleted the entry. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as a matter of fact the advertisement was effected in the Trade Mark Journal as per the procedure contemplated under Section 20 (1) of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial