JUDGMENT

Background The appellant assails an order dated 01.06.2010 by which Opposition No.MAS-199608 was dismissed and, consequently, Application No.699845 for registration of the trade mark set out below was accepted for registration:

2. The first respondent applied for registration of the device mark set out above on 27.02.1996 in relation to pumps, including mono block pumps, centrifugal pumps, reciprocating pumps, stage pumps, parts thereof and fittings therefor. The application was filed by asserting use since 01.01.1979. The application was accepted for advertisement and such advertisement was published in Trade Marks Journal No.1327 (S-III) dated 17.01.2005 at page No.857.

3. Upon noticing such advertisement, on 12.07.2005, the appellant lodged a notice of opposition objecting to the registration of the above mentioned mark on the ground that it is carrying on the business of manufacturing and dealing in a wide range of products such as television sets, video cassette recorders, music systems, handy cams and other consumer electronic products. The appellant asserted the prior adoption and use of the trademark 'SHARP' both outside India and in India. The appellant further asserted that it is the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'SHARP' in India in many classes, including class 7 under Trademark No. 621788 in respect of washing machines, drying machines, juicers and mixers. The appellant further asserted that its mark is a well-known trade mark and that it is registered as a well-known trade mark in the Japanese and Korean Trade Mark Registers. The first respondent filed a counter statement on 15.05.2006 in response to the notice of opposition. Both parties filed evidence in support of the opposition and application, respectively, and pursuant to the hearing on 17.02.2010, the impugned order was issued. The present appeal arises in the said facts and circumstances.

Counsel and their contentions

4. Oral submissions 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, learned counsel. The second respondent was represented by Mr.C.Samivel, learned SPC.

5. Mr.Arun C. Mohan submitted that the appellant adopted the trade mark 'SHARP' in the year 1929 in relation to radio sets. Shortly thereafter, the appellant began export of its products to India in 1934. Such export was suspended due to the second world war and resumed in 1959. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has manufacturing and/or sales bases in at least 30 countries and that its products are marketed in more than 160 countries. As regards India, learned counsel submitted that the mark 'SHARP' has been used in relation to products used in India for a considerable duration. In support of this submission, learned counsel referred to pages 50, 52, 58 and 59 of the typed set of papers to contend that products bearing the trade mark 'SHARP' were imported into India from 1983 onwards. He further submitted that the evidence of import was not taken into consideration by the Registrar of Trade Marks in the impugned order. Learned counsel also referred to advertisements published in globally renowned magazines from the 1980s and submitted that these magazines were subscribed to in India. He also referred to the turnover of Sharp Corporation in the year 1997, as per Forbes International, and pointed out that the turnover was 159 billion US Dollars (USD) in the said year. He next referred to the registrations obtained by the appellant for word and device marks containing the word 'SHARP' in multiple overseas jurisdictions and in multiple classes, in India, including class 7 in relation to washing machines, drying machines, juicers and mixers. With reference to the Register of Trade Marks maintained in Japan and a judgment pronounced in Korea, learned counsel submitted that the mark was registered as a well-known trademark in Japan and Korea.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that