Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The plaintiff No.1 also registered the trade mark(s) "CH (label)", "CH Control" and "CH" in respect of electric goods included in Class 9 under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in India. The details of these trademarks are as follows: 

         Sr.     Trademark   Registration No.   Class   Date of
         No.                                            application
         1.                  205632             9       03.11.1975

         2.                  164434             9       08.06.1954


         3.                  642706             9       11.10.1994

HAMMER in the year 1994.

56. Plaintiffs‟ trademarks were registered prior in point of time to the user claim by the defendant in its trade marks application as the plaintiff‟s trademark CUTLER-HAMMER bearing No.164435 in Class 09 is registered since 8th June, 1954 when the defendant company was not even in existence.

57. The plaintiffs‟ trademark CH bearing application No.164434 in Class 09 was registered since 8th June, 1954. Further, the plaintiff‟s trademark CH bearing application No.205632 in Class 09 was registered since 3rd November, 1961. However, the said registrations were removed for non-payment of renewal fee due for period 1989 - 1996.

58. Legal Proceeding Certificates, i.e. certified copies of registrations reveal that the plaintiff No.1 is the subsequent registered proprietor of the trademark cutler-hammer bearing No.164435 in Class 09. The said trademark was initially registered in the name of CUTLER-HAMMER, INC. In the year 1979, CUTLER-HAMMER, INC. merged with and into Plaintiff no.1. Therefore, pursuant to request on form TM-24 dated 28th November, 1979 by erstwhile agents Remfry & Son (now Remfry & Sagar) and order thereon dated 23rd January, 1980, Eaton Corporation (Plaintiff No.1) became the subsequent registered proprietor as from 30th March, 1979 by virtue of Certificate of Merger.

 It was a commercially restricted agreement executed by plaintiff No.1 to control prices of the products manufactured by Bhartia Cutler-Hammer Limited using plaintiff‟s know how and technical data.

65. It is not a case of the defendant that they were not aware of proprietorship of plaintiffs over the trademarks in question. Despite acknowledging and admitting the proprietary rights of plaintiffs in the trademark CH and further expressly agreeing not to apply for registration of the said marks in various agreements executed between the parties, the defendant dishonestly adopted the impugned mark CUTLER HAMMER and applied for registration thereof in the year 1992 under No.582999. The same is registered by committing fraud on the Registry and making false claim of proprietorship and user thereof. The rectification for removal of impugned trademark from the Register is filed by plaintiff No.1 on 20th July, 2012 and the same is admitted by Intellectual Property Appellate Board and numbered as ORA/269/2012/TM.DEL. Defendant had no plausible explanation/ justification to adopt the marks, CUTLER-HAMMER, BHARTIA CUTLER-HAMMER and CH and/or variants thereof. Even after obtaining registration of the mark "CH (logo)" with the word CONTROL, the defendant was using the mark CH without using the word CONTROL below the logo as appeared from registration obtained by the defendant who has also applied for registration of trademark in various Classes which is similar to plaintiffs‟ trademark CH.