Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. By a detailed order dated 6-8-2004, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board dismissed O.A.No.26 of 2004 filed by the Kangayam party against the grant of registration to Tindivanam party. Even while doing so, the Board directed the Registrar to amend the application for registration filed by the Tindivanam party by restricting the same to the first named brother namely B.Mohammed Yousuf, among the 3 original applicants. It is pertinent to point out here that by the time the said order was passed (on 6-8-2004) the Registrar had already issued a certificate of registration dated 26-2-2004 in favour of the original 3 applicants constituting the Tindivanam Party. Therefore the question of amending the application for registration did not arise on that date and any amendment could have been done only for the certificate of registration. But nevertheless, the Appellate Board did not take note of the issue of the certificate of registration in favour of the 3 original applicants constituting the Tindivanam party and issued the aforesaid direction for amendment of the application of the Tindivanam Party to enable one person to get the certificate as a proprietor.

14. Thus in brief, there are 5 civil revision petitions, 2 writ petitions and a writ appeal. While 3 civil revision petitions are filed by the Kangayam party arising out of applications for registration and the rival notices of opposition between Tindivanam and Kangayam parties, two revision petitions are by Delhi party against the rectification order suffered by them and the prosecution sanctioned against them. Out of the 2 writ petitions, one is by Delhi party for preventing renewal of the Tindivanam partys registration and the other is by Tindivanam party challenging the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board passed in their rectification application, merely restricting the area of operation of the Delhi partys registration but not removing their mark from the register. The writ appeal filed by the Tindivanam party is against the interim order granted in favour of the Delhi party restraining the renewal of registration in favour of Tindivanam party. All these petitions (except C.R.P.No.801 of 2006) were taken up for disposal together, in view of the fact that the dispute is intertwined between them and a finding in one cannot be rendered without any bearing on the other.

(C) In so far as the Tindivanam Party is concerned, their fight was originally only with the Kangayam Party. But the institution of C.S.No.726 of 2004 by the Delhi Party, the filing of W.P.No.28352 of 2004 by the Delhi Party against the renewal of registration in favour of Tindivanam Party, the filing of a criminal complaint in C.C.No.26937 of 2004 by the Delhi Party against the Tindivanam Party and the assignment entered into between the Delhi Party and Kangayam Party on 5.10.2004, triggered a serious reaction by the Tindivanam Party filing two applications, against the Delhi Party one for rectification of Register in ORA No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Appellate Board and the other for prosecution under Section 107 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the file of the Registrar. The Tindivanam Party was partly successful in their application for rectification, since the Appellate Board allowed ORA No.1 of 2005 partly on 15.3.2006, directing the Registrar to restrict the area of operation of the Delhi Party within the territorial of Delhi only. This order of the Appellate Board passed in ORA No.1 of 2005 has given rise to two sets of proceedings, one by the Delhi Party filing CRP No.800 of 2006 and the other by the Tindivanam Party filing W.P.No.25372 of 2006. Therefore, if the order of the Appellate Board in ORA No.1 of 2005 is tested, the rights of the Delhi Party vis-`-vis Tindivanam Party could be determined.

(X) In this case, the requirements of Section 47(1)(a) or (b), are not even pleaded properly by Tindivanam Party in their application for rectification filed on 19.1.2005 before the Appellate Board. In ground No.(c) after paragraph 12 of their application for rectification filed before the Appellate Board in ORA No.1 of 2005, the Tindivanam Party merely made a passing reference to Section 47 of the Act by pleading that the Delhi Party was not doing business with the trade mark and using the same for illegal purpose and that the trade mark was not used for bona fide purpose and liable to be removed under Section 47. Again in ground No.(d), the Tindivanam Party referred to Section 47 of the Act, just for the purpose of drawing an inference that there was no bona fide use of the trade mark in view of the civil suit and writ petition filed by the Delhi Party. Apart from these vague pleadings, the Tindivanam Party failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 47(1)(a) or (b) even in their application for rectification. As stated above, to attract Section 47(1)(a), the registration of the mark itself should be shown to have been made without any bona fide intention of using the same and it must also be shown that there was, as a matter of fact, no bona fide use of the trade mark for a period of three months. A vague pleading that there was no bona fide use by the registered proprietor, would not satisfy the twin requirements of Section 47(1)(a). Similarly, to attract Section 47(1)(b), the applicant should satisfy the non-user for a continuous period of five years upto a date three months before the date of the application. There is no pleading by the Tindivanam Party even with reference to this requirement under Section 47(1)(b). Therefore, the second ground on which the Tindivanam Party sought rectification of Register for removing the trade mark of the Delhi Party, also fails.