Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
V-Guard Industries Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 80 of 2021 & I.A. 178 of 2023
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Ambiguities in trademark provisions must favor the rights of opposition, highlighting the need for precise legal language.
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Correction of clerical error in judgment - Clarification regarding a word in the judgment that affects the interpretation of trademark registration rights. (Para 3)
(B) The court affirmed that the ambiguity within provisions granting rights to oppose trademark registration favored the appellant, highlighting the importance of clear language in judicial decisions. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The judgment under review involved a clerical correction in a previous order, where the word 'won't' was to be amended to 'would' to properly reflect the court's intention regarding the appellant's rights.
Findings of Court:
The judgment from 6th January 2023 was corrected to reflect the accurate interpretation of the law concerning trademark registration rights.
Issues: Whether the clerical error could impact the interpretation of rights vested in an opponent regarding trademark opposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that accurate wording is essential for the proper understanding of legal rights, specifically in trademark cases.
Result: The judgment dated 6th January 2023 stands corrected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. correction of judgment order (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. agreement on clerical error (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
ORDER
1. The judgment in this case was pronounced on 6th January 2023.
2. Ms. Babna Das had appeared yesterday and submitted that there was a clerical error in the order, which was required to be corrected. She was permitted to mention the matter this morning.
3. Both learned Counsel are ad idem agreeable to the aforesaid correction as sought by Ms. Das. The correction relates to the word "won't" as it figures in para 19 of the judgment dated 6th January 2023, which learned Counsel agree ad idem, should read "would".
4. Accordingly, para 19 of the judgment dated 6th January 2023 shall stand corrected to read thus:
"19. Given the nature of these provisions and the fact that they affect the valuable right vested in an opponent who seeks to oppose the registration of a trade mark, I am of the considered opinion that, in the facts of the present case, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the ambiguity inherent in this provision."
5. The judgment dated 6th January 2023 stands corrected accordingly.
6. This order shall be read as a corrigendum to the judgment dated 6th January 2023.
