The appellant applied to register the trademark ‘RENOL’ in Class 2, claiming use in India since 2001 through its predecessor-in-interest Clariant AG, which had been using the mark globally since 1905. The respondent opposed this application, relying on its earlier registered trademark ‘REINOL’ in Classes 1 and 3, claiming use since 1984 and 1991 respectively.
Procedurally, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the opposition and refused the appellant’s application by an order dated February 12, 2024. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The dispute turned on whether the respondent, who filed no evidence in support of use, could succeed merely on prior registration, and whether the appellant had sufficiently proved its claimed user since 2001.
In discussion, the Court held that in opposition proceedings, the burden initially lies on the opponent to substantiate its claim through evidence; mere assertions in a notice of opposition are not enough. The Court noted that the respondent did not file any evidence to prove use of ‘REINOL,’ whereas the appellant had filed an invoice dated December 16, 2001 evidencing sale under the mark ‘RENOL.’ The Court cited decisions like Gupta Enterprises v. Gupta Enterprises & Anr., AIR 1998 Del 232, and Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., 1959 SCC OnLine SC 11, reaffirming that mere registration does not establish use.
The Court set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar, finding it unsustainable in law because it relied solely on the respondent’s unproven assertions. The matter was remanded to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh adjudication on merits within six months.
No comments:
Post a Comment