Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Chandra Bhan Agarwal And Anr. vs Arjundas Agarwal And Ors. on 8 June, 1979

Walter Bushnell Private Limited vs Mapra Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2007

19. Now we would consider whether the impugned trade mark falls under any of the absolute grounds for refusal of registration or qualified to be registered under Section 9 of the Act. The mark DROT is exclusively derived from the basic drug (in fact a generic word) without containing something else, a surplus or a sufficient capricious, which is not inherently distinctive or capable of distinguishing. Descriptive words are not qualified to be registered unless they have acquired distinctiveness by use and trade evidence or acquired a secondary meaning before registration. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Chandra Bhan's case (supra), while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge dismissing the application for rectification has held as under:
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. vs The Scotch Whisky Association on 23 July, 1979

(19) The last submission of Mr. Chadha is that the Act has conferred a discretion on the Registrar in the matter of allowing registration and in accordance with the well-accepted principles of law, the discretion exercised by him should not be lightly interfered with. He has relied upon Lakbir Singh v. Bakhat Singh and others, and Chander Bhan Agarwal and another vs. Arjundas Agarwal and others, . We need not discuss these authorities as we are whole-heartedly in agreement with the principle followed therein. In the instant case, the Assistant Registrar fell into an initial error that the onus lay on the respondent presumably on the view that the application for registration had been admitted before notice of opposition was given by the respondent. We have already held that in view of the nature of the prohibition contained in Section 11, the onus was on the appellant from beginning to end and no consideration of shifting of that onus ever arose. Another error that was committed by the Assistant Registrar was in holding that the respondent had produced no evidence. We have shown above that there was abundant evidence coming from the admissions in the pleading and uncontroverter averments in the affidavit sworn by David Clark Banks. The repeated observations made by the Assistant Registrar that there was no evidence produced by the respondent are wholly unwarranted. Once a particular fact is admitted no necessity for production of evidence to substantiate arises and once the evidence is produced in the manner required by law, and in this case by affidavits as it was required to be done under Section 99, nothing more was needed after the various statements and claims were admitted or left unchallenged and uncontroverter. The power of the Registrar to grant registration is no doubt discretionary but the discretion is to be exercised in a judicial manner for furthering the intent .and purpose of the Act. In this case, for reasons aforementioned, the Assistant Registrar came to an erroneous view that the proposed trade mark was not likely to deceive or cause confusion. His decision suffered from the vice of illegality besides impropriety. It deserved to be interferred with and was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1