Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"27.No action for infringement of unregistered trade mark :--
(1)No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trade mark.
(2)Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods as the goods of another person or the remedies in respect thereof."

The relevant parts of Section 106 of the Act read as under :--

"106.Reliefs in suits for infringement or for passing off :-

(10) In M/s. L. D. Malhotra Industries v. M/s. Ropi Industries, I.L.R. 1976 (1) Delhi 278 (1), the law regarding registered and unregistered trade marks has been very succinctly enunciated by Avadh Behari, J. and this we say with great respect. In that case two industries were engaged in the manufacture of dress hooks which are generally used in garments. One was M/s. Ropi Industries and the other was M/s. L. D. Malhotra Industries, respectively referred to in the judgment as Ropis and Malhotras. The latter, i.e. Malhotras got their mark Kismat (word per se) registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks in December, 1967. In December, 1969 Ropis made an application for registration of their trade mark KISMAT. This application was advertised in the trade mark journal in November, 1970. In February, 1971 Malhotras filed an opposition. Ropis had sought registration of a label mark of which the word Kismat was the dominant part claiming that 'they were using the label mark Kismat since 1963. The Assistant Registrar held that Ropis were prior users of the trade mark KISMAT. In April, 1971 Ropis made an application for rectification of the register under Section 56(2) of the Act vis-a-vis the registration granted to Malhotras. That is how the matter came before Avadh Behari, J. He observed :-