A party must provide clear evidence of error for a review petition to be granted, and vague claims of prior use without sufficient documentation do not substantiate such grounds.

ORDER :

1. At the outset, it is seen that (T) OP (TM) No.425 of 2023 has already been disposed of and only as against the order passed in the said proceedings, (T) Rev. Pet (IPD) No.1 of 2024 has been filed. Hence, nothing survives for consideration in (T) OP (TM) No.425 of 2023.

2. Taking up the review petition, I have heard Mrs.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Bharath for M/s.K.G.Bansal & Co.,, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3. Mrs.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the applicant had adopted the mark even in 1962 and unfortunately, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board has not taken note of the same. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would invite my attention to the relevant documents filed along with the typed set of papers and also fortify her contentions by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasir Sultan's case.

4. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the petitioner, after his father's death, had applied for registration and he was also accorded with registration in No.1330146, which however was opposed in No.1495476. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the registration itself was a recognition of the right of the petitioner and she would invite my attention to Ex.3, license, where it is clearly mentioned that the license was issued on 03.01.1972. Therefore, according to her, the IPAB ought to have taken note of the said fact and even if the petitioner had not been able to establish adoption in 1962, atleast from 1972 onwards there was documentary evidence to support the claim of the petitioner. She would therefore submit that there is an error apparent on the face of record and prayed for the review petition being allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Bharath, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that the petitioner can claim registration only from 1973 onwards, even though the claim has been made that the mark was adopted even in 1962. He would further submit that the order of the IPAB came to be passed on 21.03.2014 and the review petition was filed on 16.05.2014 to which, the contesting respondent also filed a counter affidavit on 25.05.2015. He would also submit that none of the grounds set out under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made out and there is no error on the face of the record, namely the order passed by the IPAB.

6. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would further submit that the scope of review is limited and no grounds have been substantiated or made out by the review petitioner and he would also place reliance on the findings of the IPAB and submit that specific findings have been rendered by the Board and if at all the review petitioner was aggrieved, an appeal ought to have been preferred and not a review petition, especially when the petitioner/review petitioner seeks 14 years of pre-dated benefit. Insofar as the reliance placed on Ex.3, which is the license dated 03.01.1972, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that even in the grounds of review, this plea has not been taken and therefore, the review petitioner cannot press this into service. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the review petition.

7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. The review petition has been filed primarily on the grounds that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishnudas Trading As Vishnudas Vs. The