Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Sanjay Chadha Trading as Eveready Tools Emporium – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial context and ownership of trademarks (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments against trademark removal (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. ipab's framing of issues (Para 5) |
| 4. analysis of respondent's claims of well-known status (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. ipab's conclusions on acquiescence and continuous use (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. cross-examination implications on evidence (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. final adjudication by the high court (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the common order dated 22nd September, 2020 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPAB'), whereby the rectification/cancellation petitions bearing ORA/97/2009/TM/DEL and ORA/98/2009/TM/DEL, filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 Eveready Industries India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent'), have been allowed, resulting in the removal of the registered trade marks No. 439233 ("EVEREADY" word per se) and No. 539621 ("EVEREADY" logo) or "
" in Class-8 from the Register of Trade Marks. Vide the present petition the petitioners are challenging the
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
