Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.55 seconds)Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
S. Syed Mohideen vs P. Sulochana Bai on 17 March, 2015
(c) Appellant's application for registration ought to have proceeded
for registration owing to the 'first user rule' emanating from Section
34 of 1999 Act as also the law settled by the Supreme Court in S.
Syed (supra) and Neon Laboratories (supra); and
Section 54 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
P. Kamala Devi Chordia vs P. Ganeshan And Ors. on 4 August, 2004
7. It is urged that use of JSPL amounts to use of JSP in terms of Section
55 of 1999 Act, which provides that where the use of a registered trademark
is required to be proved for any purpose, Tribunal may accept the use of one
of the associated trademark or substantially identical trademarks for proving
use of the trademark in question. Further, Appellant is using the mark JSP
on its website and social media pages and the mark is well known amongst
the traders and the members of public and is identified with goods,
businesses and services originating from and/or associated with the
Appellant and none else. This is evident from the Google search for the
trademark JSP PANTHER, which shows only the website and business of
the Appellant. It is submitted that Appellant had brought forth this point
before the Respondent and benefit of Section 55 was sought, relying on the
decision of IPAB in the case of P. Kamala Devi Chordia v. P. Ganeshan
and Others., 2004 SCC OnLine IPAB 22, where it was held that Section
54(1) (now Section 55) enables the authority to accept the use of a registered
associated trademark or of a trademark with any other addition or alteration,
not substantially affecting its identity, however, Respondent has not even
referred to this argument, which has resulted in grave injustice to the
Appellant.
Section 91 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
I Am The Ocean, Llc vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trademark ... on 14 June, 2023
18. The impugned order dated 25.07.2025 suffers from lack of reasoning
as also suffers from non-application of mind to the detailed submissions
made by the Appellant, as captured above. The Bombay High Court in I Am
The Ocean, LLC v. Registrar of Trade Marks, MANU/MH/2701/2023
remanded the matter back to the Registrar of the Trade Marks on the ground
that the impugned order was passed without considering the submissions
made by the petitioner therein. It was observed that the impugned order
lacked cogent reasons. Bombay High Court highlighted that in several
matters in the past, submissions and documents which formed part of the
This is a digitally signed order.
Alkem Laboratories Limited vs Mega International(P) Ltd. on 14 November, 2014
In furtherance of this argument, it is fairly urged that albeit Appellant
did not directly urge honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of 1999
Act before the Respondent, however, it had specifically pleaded prior use of
the trademark, which was sufficient for the Respondent to exercise
discretion under Section 12 and grant registration on ground of honest and
concurrent use and in support of this plea, reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Mega
International (P) Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2878. To sum up, Mr.
Hemant Singh argues that Respondent did not consider the crucial issues
flagged by the Appellant in the comprehensive reply to the ER as also the
additional submissions and has ignored the relevant material on record and
hence, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Respondent for re-
consideration of the trademark application.