associated with DRL and its
products in the pharmaceutical industry.
3 "IPAB" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAGYA RFA(OS) 138/2013 ... Parallel to the civil proceedings, DRL filed a rectification petition
before the IPAB, seeking the removal of the "REDDY" mark from
declined the prayer for stay of operation of the
judgment of the IPAB. This order was carried in appeal to the Division
Bench of this ... when it was assigned to Thukral by Jain. This
11 "IPAB" hereinafter
12 P.M. Diesels Pvt Ltd v. Thukral Mechanical Works
Opposition filed by ADP to the application be dismissed.
4. The IPAB, by order dated 29 November 2018, allowed Peru's
appeal, dismissed ... hereinafter
5 "Peru", hereinafter, for ease of reference
6 "IPAB" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
LPA 577/2025
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
said patents came to be filed before the Intellectual
Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai, including an application
filed by one Aditi Manufacturing Company. The IPAB ... Order dated 19th November,
2012, stayed the First Order.
iii. The IPAB thereafter, vide subsequent orders dated 14th March, 2013
("second order
said patents came to be filed before the Intellectual
Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai, including an application
filed by one Aditi Manufacturing Company. The IPAB ... Order dated 19th November,
2012, stayed the First Order.
iii. The IPAB thereafter, vide subsequent orders dated 14th March, 2013
("second order
said patents came to be filed before the Intellectual
Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai, including an application
filed by one Aditi Manufacturing Company. The IPAB ... Order dated 19th November,
2012, stayed the First Order.
iii. The IPAB thereafter, vide subsequent orders dated 14th March, 2013
("second order
said patents came to be filed before the Intellectual
Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai, including an application
filed by one Aditi Manufacturing Company. The IPAB ... Order dated 19th November,
2012, stayed the First Order.
iii. The IPAB thereafter, vide subsequent orders dated 14th March, 2013
("second order
email on 25th March, 2020 before the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board (IPAB). Upon abolition of the Board, all matters
are said to have been transferred ... Petition on the presumption that such an Appeal was filed before the
IPAB within limitation, and that the filing of the Writ Petition would
extent that the Plaintiff herein has filed
a Rectification Petition before IPAB to challenge the
registration of impugned trademark SACHAMOTI. But, the
remaining contents ... Connected Suit. Rajkumar Sabu had filed, in the proceedings
before the IPAB, certain invoices of the Defendants pertaining
to the year 2001 bearing the Central
Written Statement in this Suit, filed Rectification Petition before the
erstwhile IPAB, Chennai against all the registered Trade Marks of Plaintiff
No.1 vide
