Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited vs E1 Entertainment Television, LLC

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
E1 Entertainment Television, LLC – Respondent

Table of Content
1. filing of rectification petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding trademark registration awareness. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. prior case law on trademark validity. (Para 7 , 13 , 14)
4. sections 30(2)(e) and 124 of tma. (Para 8 , 9)
5. no merit in the rectification application. (Para 15 , 16)
6. extension for counter statement requested. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. schedule for filing and future hearings. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

I.A. 4831/2022(of the respondent no.1 u/s 151 of CPC)

1. The present rectification petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for rectification of the trademark register qua trademark registration no.1252812, which is registered in class 99 (classes 38 and 41) in favour of the respondent no.1 since 2nd December, 2003.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 seeking dismissal of the aforesaid rectification petition.

3. Notice in this application was issued on 5th March, 2022 and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1. Rejoinder thereto has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1.

4. Counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTAMIT BANSALBennett, Coleman and Company Limited – AppellantVersusE1 Entertainment Television, LLC – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
E1 Entertainment Television, LLC – Respondent