Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Navaid Khan vs Registrar Of Trademarks Office on 30 May, 2023

Mr. Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad vs The Registrar Of Trademark on 15 September, 2023

3. After inviting my attention to the device mark for which the application was submitted, learned counsel pointed out that the marks cited in the examination report were word marks that were registered in classes 30 and 31, which pertain to goods. By contrast, learned counsel contended that the appellant functions as a market place for farmers and artisans to market their products. Consequently, she contended that the allegedly conflicting marks are in relation to goods and that the same cannot be construed as similar to the services provided by the appellant. Learned counsel also contended that the mark is a device mark https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 4 which contains pictures of a tractor, a cow, a farmer and that the words 'GRAMA BAZAAR' are written beneath the device containing the above. By relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Navaid Khan v. Registrar of Trade Marks Office, 2023 SCC Online Del 3273, she contends that such device mark would not fall within the scope of Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act. Learned counsel also contended that no objection was raised under Section 9(1) in the examination report and that such objection was raised for the first time in the impugned order.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Leelarani Selvaraju vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 3 December, 2024

6. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to a Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Navaid Khan Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Office reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA (TM) No.17 of 2024 3273 and would submit that the Delhi High Court had set aside the impugned order by inferring that the applicant therein had applied for registration of a composite mark, however, the respondent has erroneously refused to register the same, treating that the application was only for a word mark registration. Relying upon the said Judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the present case also, by total non application of mind to the fact that the appellant had infact applied only for a composite mark, the respondent has erroneously refused to register the said Trade Mark, treating the appellant's application as if the appellant had sought for registration of word mark ("PAKODA POINT") alone.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document
1