Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.86 seconds)Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Gokul Spices Private Ltd. vs Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. on 19 February, 1998
XXIII (2) 1982 (2) and Gokul Spices Private Limited v. Ramdev Food Products Private Limited 1998 (0) GLHEL 203724. The learned Counsel submitted that though the opposition (Form-5) was within the period of three months, still the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad, who has given the number to Opposition as AMD/190624, has not given any opportunity of being heard to the appellant and passed the impugned order on the ground that the opposition filed by the appellant is beyond the prescribed time limit under Rule 47(6) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The learned Counsel submitted that the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order without applying the proper procedure or rules and has committed a gross error in passing the same without giving any reasons and without considering the merit, and as such, the impugned order is nothing but miscarriage of justice.
The Copyright Act, 1957
1