Monday, August 26, 2024

Jagatjit Industries Limited vs The Intellectual Prop Appellate Board

The case of Jagatjit Industries Limited versus The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors, decided on January 20, 2016, revolves around the trademark "BLENDERS PRIDE" and the legal battle between Jagatjit Industries Limited (the appellant) and the respondent, a corporation incorporated in the United States, which is a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A. The respondent claims to have coined and adopted the trademark in 1973 and has since established its reputation globally, including in India. The respondent has registered the trademark in over 50 countries and has been selling the product in India since 1995.

The appellant applied for registration of an identical trademark, which was advertised in the Trademarks Journal Mega-I on October 7, 2003. The respondent filed a notice of opposition within the statutory period and sought an extension of time to file its opposition. Despite the pending opposition, the appellant was issued a trademark registration certificate on January 13, 2004. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, and the Registrar issued a show cause notice to the appellant, proposing to rectify the register due to the wrongful issuance of the registration certificate.

The appellant argued that the show cause notice was not maintainable and that the opposition filed by the respondent was beyond time. The respondent, however, maintained that the extension of time for filing the opposition had been accepted by the Registrar, and thus the registration was invalid. The Appellate Board reversed the Registrar's order, stating that the registration was contrary to Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court's Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order, holding that the Registrar's power to correct mistakes under Section 57(4) is independent of any rectification application and that the registration was invalid.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the Division Bench's decision, stating that the Registrar had extended the time for filing the opposition, and thus the registration certificate issued to the appellant was in violation of Section 23(1) of the Act. The Court also clarified that the suo motu powers of the Registrar under Section 57(4) are not taken away by Section 125 of the Act, which concerns applications for rectification of the register. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order to rectify the register by removing the appellant's trademark.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled that the registration of the trademark "BLENDERS PRIDE" by Jagatjit Industries Limited was invalid due to the pending opposition proceedings initiated by the respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register and clarified the legal provisions regarding the Registrar's powers to rectify the register and the procedure for challenging the validity of a trademark registration.

Case Citation: Jagatjit Industries Limited vs The Intellectual Prop Appellate Board.:AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 478,

Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United, Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com,
Ph no: 9990389539

Disclaimer:

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog