Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Apex Laboratories Limited, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trademark) filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 praying to (a) set aside/quash the order dated 27th January 2011 of the 2nd respondent, restore order dated 3rd February 2010 allowing appellant''s opposition MAS -58565 and dismissing 1st respondent application No. 699376 in class 5; (b) allow appellant''s opposition MAS-58565 and disallow 1st respondent''s application no.699376 in class 5 to proceed for registration.)
1. An order dated 27.01.2011 allowing a review application is impugned in this appeal. The first respondent herein had applied for registration of the mark ''ZINCODERM''. The appellant filed notice of opposition on 08.03.2001. After considering the pleadings and the evidence placed on record by the parties, by order dated 03.02.2010, the opposition was accepted and the Trademarks Registry refused to register the first respondent''s mark ''ZINCODERM''. Upon a review application being filed, the order dated 27.01.2011 was issued allowing such review.
2. Oral arguments on behalf of the appellant were advanced by Mr.Arun C. Mohan, learned counsel; and on behalf of the first respondent by Mr.R. Sathish Kumar,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for errors to be apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason to justify review jurisdiction.
A review application under Section 114 of the CPC can be maintained even after a remand order has been given effect to, and the review process is limited to addressing errors apparent on the face of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinctiveness of a mark for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and the need for the Registrar to p....
The duty of the Court to rectify orders based on wrong assumptions of facts and the limited scope of review compared to an appeal.
The Registrar of Trade Marks cannot condone delay in review applications beyond the period prescribed by Trade Marks Rules, affirming adherence to statutory timelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant had a prima facie case against the respondent for trademark infringement, and the Trial Court's findings were contrary to the fa....
The appellant's prior use of the trade mark 'Shriphal' and the effect of non-renewal of trade mark registration were central to the court's decision.
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
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
