Back
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Mankind Pharma Limited – Appellant
Versus
Micor Labs Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
(Abdul Quddhose, J.)
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Sections 57/125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to remove the entry made in respect of trademark number 955510 of September 13, 2000, for the mark 'DOLOBENE' in class 05 from the Register.)
This petition has been filed under Section 57 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short “the Act”) seeking to rectify the Trade Mark registration obtained by the 1st respondent in respect of the Trade Mark 'DOLOBENE'. According to the petitioner, the said Trade Mark 'DOLOBENE' is deceptively similar to that of the applicant's trade mark 'DOLOBAN'.
2. The following are the undisputed facts:
a) The petitioner and the 1st respondent are both Pharmaceutical Companies. The petitioner obtained Trade Mark Registration for its mark 'DOLOBAN' in the year 1994 and while obtaining registration, the petitioner had disclosed that they have been using the mark 'DOLOBAN' from the year 1993.
b) The registration of the petitioner's mark 'DOLOBAN' under the Trade Marks Act got expired on 03.02.2004. The petitioner did not renew the registration for a further period under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
c) The 1st respondent who is also in the pharmaceutical bu
The principle of acquiescence under Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act bars a prior user from claiming rights after allowing a similar mark's use for over five years, especially when the prior mark's ....
Registration of a trademark may be cancelled if it is found to be deceptively similar to a prior registered mark and has not been used for five years, reflecting both private and public interest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark from the register of trade marks must establish a fresh cause of action for rectific....
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
The judgment underscores that trademark registration alone does not guarantee protection without actual use, and that delay in action does not preclude injunction if infringement is proven.
The trial court must assess only the prima facie tenability of claims regarding trademark validity under Section 124, without delving into the merits of those claims.
Prior use of a registered trademark grants exclusive rights, and honest concurrent use is not a defense in trademark infringement unless registered.
Registered trademarks can be removed for non-use exceeding five years, reinforcing the burden of proof on the registered proprietor to demonstrate genuine usage.
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
