SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Cal) 406

High Court Of Calcutta
UMESH CHANDRA BENERJEE , KALYANMOY GANGULI
J.N.NICHOLS (VIMTO) LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ROSE AND THISTLE - Respondent
Appeal 331  Of  1990
Decided On : 09/02/1993

Advocates Appeared:
B.R.LODGE, BACHAVAT, Gautam Chakraborty, R.K. KHANNA, S.N.MUKHERJEE

Import restrictions do not constitute special circumstances within the meaning of Section 46(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Headnote:

TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 - S. 46(1)(B), 46(3) - REMOVAL OF MARK FROM REGISTER - SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES - IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, J. N. Nichols (Vimto) Limited, was the registered proprietor of the trademark "vinto" in Class 32 for non-alcoholic drinks. The respondent, Berlie Company, applied for removal of the mark from the register on the ground of non-use for a period of five years and one month. The appellant defended the application on the ground of special circumstances, namely, import restrictions.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the import restrictions did not constitute special circumstances within the meaning of Section 46(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The court found that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that the non-user of the mark was due to special circumstances. The court also found that the appellant had not been able to bring home the contention that there was in fact, special circumstances attached to the trade during the period in question more so by reason of free sale of product Vimto up to the year 1987.

Issues: Whether import restrictions constitute special circumstances within the meaning of Section 46(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that import restrictions do not constitute special circumstances within the meaning of Section 46(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The court found that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that the non-user of the mark was due to special circumstances. The court also found that the appellant had not been able to bring home the contention that there was in fact, special circumstances attached to the trade during the period in question more so by reason of free sale of product Vimto up to the year 1987.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the English Act of 1938 (Trade Marks Act, 1938) and the Indian Act of 1958 (The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958) are in pari materia with each other in regard to the availability of a defence of special circumstances in the matter of an application for removal of a registered mark from the register of marks. For convenience's sake Ss. 26 (1) and 26 (3) of the English Act and Ss. 46 (1) (b) and 46 (3) of the Indian Act are set out hereunder. "26. (1) Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Section, a registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of any of the goods in respect of which it is registered on application by any person aggrieved to the Court or, at the option of the applicant and subject to the provisions of Section fifty-four of this Act, to the Registrar, on the ground either- (a) that the trade mark was registered without any bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods by him, and that there has in fact been no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to the date one month before the date of the application; or (b) that up to the date one month before the date of the application a continuous period of five years or longer elapsed during which the trade mark was a registered trade mark and during which there was no bona fide use thereof in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being :-provided that (except where the applicant has been permitted under Sub-Section. (2) of Section twelve of this Act to register an identical or nearly resembling trade mark in respect of the goods in question or where the tribunal is of opinion that he might properly be permitted so to register such a trade mark) the tribunal may refuse an application made under paragraph (a) or (b) of this Sub-Section in relation to any goods, if it is shown that there has been, before the relevant date or during the relevant period, as the case may be, bona fide use of the trade mark by any proprietor thereof for the time being in relation to goods of the same description, being goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered. (2) *********************************************************************************** (3) An applicant shall not be entitled to rely for the purposes of paragraph (b) of Sub-Section (1) or for the purposes of Sub-Section (2), of this Section on any non-use of a trade mark that is shown to have been due to special circumstances in the trade and not to any intention not to use or to abandon the trade mark in relation to the goods to which the application relates. "46. Removal from register and imposition of Limitations on ground of non-use (1 ). Subject to the provisions of Sec. 47, a registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of any of the goods in respect of which it is registered on application made in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar by any person aggrieved on the ground either - (a) that the trade mark was registered without any bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods by him or, in a case to which the provisions of Sec. 45 apply, by the company concerned, and that there has, in fact, been no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to a date one month before the date of the application; or (b) that up to a date one month before the date of the application, a continuous period of five years or longer has elapsed during which the trade mark was registered and during which there was no bona fide use thereof in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being; provided that, except where the applicant has been permitted under Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 12 to register an identical or nearly r





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top