Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner details and trademark application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from the 1st respondent regarding bad faith. (Para 3) |
| 3. legal principles regarding non-use and burden of proof. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. 1st respondent's evidence and arguments. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's observation on evidence and claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 6. final judgment to remove trademark. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
This Petition has been filed to pass an order to allow the rectification application and to remove the Trade Mark Number 2222788 of October 20, 2011 for the mark “PREMIO” in class 11 from the Register.
2.1.The Petitioner, a publicly listed company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 2013, operates from its registered office in Mumbai and its regional office in New Delhi. This petition is filed through its authorized representative, Mr. Keshav Sharma, Manager (Legal), who has been empowered by a Power of Attorney deed dated December 18, 2018 to sign, file, verify, and pursue this rectification petition.
2.3.Though the 1st Respondent obtained registration for the mark PREMIO in the year 2013 and claiming usage from 2011, the Petitioner found that the 1st Respondent has not sold any goods und
Registered trademarks can be removed for non-use exceeding five years, reinforcing the burden of proof on the registered proprietor to demonstrate genuine usage.
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....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act to determine the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic similarity and the priority....
Trademark rectification petitions require a triable issue on validity to proceed; without this, claims are not maintainable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
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
