Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Sachdeva Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. None appears for the Petitioner. There has been no appearance for the last several hearings.
3. The present two appeals under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 have been filed by the Appellant-Sachdeva Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. challenging the impugned order dated 3rd September, 2014 passed by the Respondent- Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. The trade mark applications involved in the present appeals are as follows:
| Application no. | Class | Date of Application | Applicant | TM-16 applicant |
| 585668 in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 96/2022 | 30 | 25th November, 1992 | Mahaveer Rice Traders | M/s. Jain Riceland |
| 781851 in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 97/2022 | 30 | 11th December, 1997 | Paras Trading Co. |
4. In both the appeals, vide the impugned order, the TM-16 under Section 22 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 filed by the TM-16 Applicant-M/s. Jain Riceland on 9th April 2012 for substituting the name of M/s Jain Riceland Pvt. Ltd. has been allowed by the Respondent-Deputy Registrar of Trademarks.
5. In C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 96/2022, Applicant-M/s Mahaveer Rice Traders, 1783-A, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 filed an application for registration of the mark `PHOOLPA
The impugned order safeguarded the appellant's interest by keeping the contentions on merits open, despite allowing the TM-16 applications.
Initially rejected trademark application for being non-distinctive was deemed unsustainable due to prior registrations and a no-objection from authorities, clarifying that the outline of a national s....
The use of the outline of the map of India as a trademark is not violative of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or the Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
The combination of common words can be distinctive and unique as a trade mark, and the appellate forum has a limited role and cannot entertain new issues or documents at the appellate stage.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the family association with the trade mark Jain Shikanji, the maintainability of the sui....
Trademark applications cannot be refused based on objections that are unsubstantiated, particularly when prior permissions exist and are not recorded by the Registrar.
Trademark registrations cannot be denied based on similarity when prior registrations exist, and the use of national symbols must be considered permissible if no objection is provided by relevant aut....
The court considered the ownership of cited marks and the absence of third-party marks in the examination report as key factors in allowing the appellant's trade mark application.
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for granting injunctions in trademark disputes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
