Bright Electricals Vs Mr. Ramesh Shah

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD

Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai,

       Teynampet, Chennai-600018

*****

CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA

(FRIDAY,  THIS THE 31^st DAY OF MAY,  2013)

ORA/241  & 242 /2010/TM/KOL

HON’BLE  MS. S USHA                               …  VICE CHAIRMAN

HON’BLE  SHRI. V. RAVI                             …  TECHNICAL  MEMBER

1. M/S Bright Electricals,

    11-13-27, Park Road,

    Vijayawada 520 001 (A.P. )                         …   Applicant

                   (Represented by Advocate: Shri Ajay Amitabh Suman)

Versus

1.  Mr. Ramesh Shah,

     144,C.I.T.Road,

     Kolkata 700 014.                                    …   Respondent   No.1

2.  The Registrar of Trade Marks,

     Trade Marks Registry,

     Kolkata 700 091.                                     …  Respondent   No. 2                                                  

(Represented by Advocate: Shri H.P. Shukla)

O R D E R  No.111/2013

SHRI V.RAVI,  TECHNICAL MEMBER:

          The applicants in this case are seeking removal of  the trade mark- MEDAL under No. 450653 in Class 09 and the same mark under No.756461 also in Class 09 of the respondent herein.   The grounds for rectification are mentioned below:-

2.                a.      the applicant is the owner & proprietor of the trade mark   GOLD MEDAL  and GOLD MEDAL (label) in respect of         a wide range of electrical goods since 1979 - 80 and     has    been using the same openly, extensively and continuously since then.

b.                the registration of the  impugned mark has been obtained fraudulently malafidely on false claim and  assertions and so the impugned registration is illegally remaining in the register. 

c.                the trade mark GOLD MEDAL is registered in favour of the applicant as per details mentioned below: GOLD MEDAL and GOLDMEDAL CAB*                                                                                                                                               

Sl.No	Regn.No.	Class	GOODS	Date of registration
I.	449747	09	Wires  & Cables  included In Class 9	17.02.1986
II.	518258	09	Wires & cables, electrical switches, electrical meters, extension Cords, Fuse Units, Main Switches, Electrical parts and fittings included in Class 9	20.10.1989
III.	518259	11	Lamps, Lighting, Heating, Steam generating, Cooling and refrigerating apparatus and their parts thereof all included in Class 11.	12.10.1989
IV.	603634	11	Installation and apparatus for lighting, heating, cooking, ventilating, cooling and refrigerating including electric fans, electric ovens, electric hot plates, tube lights, electric lamps not included in class 9 emergency lamps and night lamps, lamp shades, bulb and tube holders, air coolers, water coolers, refrigerators, air conditioners, water heaters, geysers, immersion heaters, parts of the fittings for all aforementioned goods.	10.08.1993
V *	892522	09	Cables and wires.	01.12.1994

  

          All the above registered marks are duly renewed and valid upto date.   Further, the applicant  are holding copyright on the original artistic work for the label mark GOLD MEDAL under the Copyright Act.    

d.                            the applicant have also obtained various government registration like Sales Tax, Central Excise, PAN No., BIS Certificate bearing ISI mark. Their products are manufactured  under the said mark by M/s Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 

e.           the applicant is the prior and senior adopter of the trade mark GOLD MEDAL which is used in respect of above mentioned products practically through out India and also exported because of its high standard of quality and    precision. 

f.          the trade mark GOLD MEDAL has become a distinctive          indicum of the applicant for  its goods and the public at large associate and identify it as the distinguishing label that enjoys solid and enduring reputation. 

g.      the respondent herein are engaged in the same or similar       business and malafidely, dishonestly and fraudulently adopted impugned trade mark MEDAL without the prior permission, leave or licence of the applicant.

h.                 the impugned mark is phonetically, visually and structurally   same or similar conveying the essentially the basic idea of the applicant’s mark.   The respondents are passing off         their goods  as that of the applicant and are guilty of unfair and unethical trade practice.    

i.           the respondent are fully aware of the rights, use and           reputation of the applicant’s trade mark at the time of         adoption  of the impugned mark. The said mark has been illegally adopted out of business greed 

j.        the respondent claim to be one of the partners of M/S Medal      Sales, Kolkata.  The said alleged firm has filed a frivolous application for the trade mark MEDAL under 1078443 in Class 09 which has been opposed by the applicant herein.    The respondents have not used the trade mark MEDAL independently or through the alleged firm M/s MEDAL SALES as there is no proved contractual agreement between them.  

k.     the applicant are ‘person aggrieved’   by the illegal registration of the respondent’s impugned mark which has caused grave, serious, irrevocable injury on a daily and continuing basis in the market and in trade to the applicant.

l.        Objections to both the applications are based on Section 9,11, and 18(1) of the Act.   Further, the respondents are not entitled to the benefit available under Section 12 as there is no ‘special circumstances’ in their favour. 

          Under these circumstances, the petitioner seeks removal and to expunge the entry pertaining to the impugned trade mark MEDAL  under No.756461 –in Class  09 ; and 450653 in
Class -09. 

3.         The case of the respondent/ registered proprietor to the trade mark is as under:-

a.  the respondent is one of the director of M/s MEDAL ELECTRONICS Pvt. LIMITED, Kolkata,.  The trade mark MEDAL was adopted by B. Ramesh Shah on 10^th July, 1997 and registered in his name.  Later he gave a licence to use the said registered trade mark to M/s MEDAL ELECTRONIC Pvt Ltd. from 26^th August, 1997 and since then the mark has been in continuous use.   

b.      the respondents are in the business of manufacturing & marketing of transistors, radio, tape recorder, car stereo, cassette amplifier, sound box etc.   

c.     the same mark MEDAL was registered earlier in the name of the respondent under no.450653 in Class 09 for similar goods in 1986.   

d.    the respondent is protected under section 32  of the trade Marks Act which reads as under: 

          “Where a trade mark is registered in breach of sub-section (1) of section 9, it shall not be declared invalid if, in consequence of the use which has been made of it, it has after registration and before commencement of any legal proceedings challenging the validity of such registration, acquired a distinctive character in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. ”

e.                the respondent have filed documentary evidence to show that the impugned mark has been used by them since 1986 consisting of sales invoices, balance sheet, advertisement materials and other documents in support of the registered trade mark 450653. 

f.                   The rest of the counter statement is a categorical denial of all the claims and assertions made by the applicant which are contrary to the submissions made by the respondent and so the respondents pray that this subject  rectification petition be dismissed with costs.     

4.      The evidence in support of the application is an affidavit of one Shri Praveen Kumar Jain  partner of the applicant firm.  This is supported by other documents such as copy of the registration certificate of the impugned mark along with its journal publication; copy of the registration certificate GOLD MEDAL of the applicant; copy of partnership deed dated 03.04.1998; year-wise sales figure under the trade mark GOLD MEDAL; copies of bills, and invoices issued by applicant including assessment order from Commercial Tax Department and copy of pleadings in opposition No. Cal-736383 to application. No.1078443 in Class 09 filed by the respondent alleged firm M/s Medal Sales, KOLKATA.

5.      The documents filed along with the Counter Statement are  an affidavit  of Shri Ramesh Shah the respondent herein; copy of deed of license agreement; copy of registration certificate; copy of Memorandum & Articles of Association dated 2^nd April 1986; copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate dated 14^th April 1987; copy of advertisement bills from 31.08.1989 to 2010; copy of purchase bill from 26^th November, 1986 to 2010 and copies of sales bill from 28^th November, 1987 till 2010.  

6.      The matter was listed for hearing before us on 3.12.2012.  We have heard the arguments of the respective counsel, gone through the pleadings and documents. The following authorities were relied on by the applicants and respondents.

APPLICANTS

1.                “Gandhi Scientific Company  Vs Gulshan  Kumar” -2009(40) PTC 22(Del.)

Petition for Interim Injunction -  the question here was who was the prior user of the mark –party seeking discretionary relief must come with a clean hand - in para 30 citing A. Anuradha Vs Canara Bank 2007 ALT 4581 (DB-APHC)”.—to put it differently, a person who touches fountain of justice with tainted hand or who makes an attempt to pollute the course of justice by making false or misleading statements or by suppressing facts must be shown the door at threshold.” 

2.      “Indian Bank Vs M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.” – AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2592

          Authorities be they constitutional, statutory or administrative possess the power to recall their judgements  or orders if they are obtained by fraud as fraud and justice never dwell together.

           

3.                “Century  Traders  Vs  Roshan Lal Dugar & Co.” – AIR 1978 Delhi 259

The mere presence of the mark in the register does not prove its user and is irrelevant  to decide an application for interim injunction unless evidence of use of the registered mark is led. 

4.     “LT Foods Limited & Another   Vs Sulson Overseas P.Ltd.”- 2012 (51) –PTC 283 (Del.)

          Plaintiff registered owner of the trade mark ‘SONA’ for rice – defendant used ‘SULSON SONA’ – plaintiff sought restraining order - prima facie evidence of validity u/s 31 of the Act – close similarity and identify in carton, mark and label –Clear case of infringement – application for making ad-interim injunction absolutely allowed.

5.”DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd.    Vs     Shri Laxmi Trader and Ors.” – 2009 (41) PTC 772 (Del.)

          Plaintiffs trade mark SHRIRAM for fertilizer, chemicals and agriculture products- defendant adopted identical mark - Held, user not honest – interim injunction made absolute.

         

6.    “Avadh Behari Rohatgi and G.C. Jain, JJ” – AIR 1985 Delhi 210

Plaintiff’s cycle bells sold under the mark ‘B.K.’ - defendant using mark B.K. 81 for cycle bells – mark held deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion – Plaintiff entitled to temporary injunction to restrain defendant from using the said mark – decision of Single Judge (Delhi HC) reversed. 

RESPONDENT:

1.  “Vishnudas trading as Vishnudas Kishandas    Vs   Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.  Ltd.”   - 1996 PTC (16) 

If traders actually trades or manufactures only one or some of the articles coming under a broad classification and such traders has no bona fide intention to trade in other goods under a class, then he should not be  permitted to enjoy monopoly in respect of all goods coming under the broad classification and thus exclude other traders to get registration.

2.    “Vardhman Properties Limited     Vs  Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. & anr.  – 2008 (37) PTC 315(IPAB)

         

          Application for removal of Vardaman – Vardaman is another name of Lord Mahavira –Contention ‘Vardaman’ is name of a sect and part of Jain mythology and so can’t be monopolized – applicant themselves were registered proprietor of ‘Vardhman Group’ (word per se).  Held, it does not lie in their mouth to say ‘Vardaman’ is not registerable - no case to vary or for rectification made out.    

Summary of Applicant’s Arguments

6.      The Learned Counsel began his three hour                    arguments by stating that the so called ‘License Agreement’ was a fake for reasons stated earlier during hearing for stay and a fraud is being played against the Board.  The original was produced before us for scrutiny. The applicant have been using ‘GOLD MEDAL since 1979.  Their goods are electrical equipments.  They own four registered trade mark.  The sales turnover under the brand GOLD MEDAL is about Rs. 13 Crores.   The respondent mark on filing date was only ‘proposed to be used’.  Our attention was drawn to respondents sales figure which are all allegedly based on cooked up invoices.  The respondent is essentially seeking to pinch the enormous goodwill  and reputation by managing to secure registration of a mark that is bound to cause confusion and deception in the trade and amongst the pubic.   All bills and invoices have been created to save the impugned mark.  Further, there is clear inconsistency and anomaly of user claimed since 10^th July, 1997 of the impugned trade mark in ORA/242/2010.    How can the same owner claim two different date of users for the same mark for the same goods by a subsequent application?.  Both the impugned marks deserve to be removed from the  register as they are hit by Sections 9, 11, 12 and 18 of the Act. 

7.      Respondents’ Argument

          The Learned Counsel stated that even a ‘proposed to be used’ marks are registrable under the Act and there is no basis to raise an objection under Section 9.  Further, the competing goods are totally different being wires, cables and Switches etc. of the applicant as against TVs sold by the respondent.  So Section 11 objection will not apply to the instant case.  Further, since the respondent have proved user Section 47 will also not apply.  The applicant are not ‘person aggrieved’ as there is no question of confusion and deception between the goods as they are poles apart;  the purchasers are different as is the market and consumers are also different and so no question of confusion or deception arises.

8.      Rebuttal Submissions :

          The counsel argued that they are relying only on Section 57 as the Board has inherent powers to remove the two impugned marks.  The respondent’s entire case is based on fraud which alone is sufficient to expunge these two marks.   

9.      The preliminary issue to be decided is whether the applicant is a ‘Person Aggrieved’ as only a such a person is entitled to file a cancellation petition.  Here,  the applicant feel it is public mischief and the impunged mark should not continue to remain in the register.    The applicant are in the same trade.  The applicants legal rights are clearly affected.   They are substantially interested in having the mark removed from the register.  They have genuine legal grievance.  The applicant are desirous of maintaining the purity of the register which is a public purpose.  The applicant assert registration of the impugned mark is contrary to law as a similar mark has been registered for similar goods.  This gives the applicant the requisite locus to file the instant petition. 

10.    In the case on hand, the grounds for removal of the two impugned marks are based only on Section 57(2) of the Act.  So our examination would be limited to  removal of ‘any entry made in the register without sufficient cause, or by any entry wrongly remaining on the register.’  Here, ‘without sufficient cause’ would be as of the date of application for registration.  The respondent’s mark MEDAL was applied for on 6^th March, 1986.  The issue for consideration is whether the registration of the impugned mark ought not to be made as of that date.  We think that should be the case.  What was the compelling necessity for the respondent to opt for MEDAL as a trade mark when he was aware of GOLD MEDAL an established brand in the market for seven to eight years?   What made the respondent  to apply for Medal as a trade mark within a month of the applicant’s application in 1986?.  These unanswered question gives rise to serious suspicion that the respondent was always on the heel of the applicant.      

11.    For a cogent understanding of the case, It will be useful to reproduce the order of another Bench of this Board dated 01.03.2012 as the issues raised therein spilled over in the main arguments also:

ORDER NO.90/2012

          “ In these two matters interim applications for stay have been moved.   The learned counsel for the respondent Shri H.P. Shukla submits that the Board may not grant interim orders in rectification application and the Board has the power to grant interim orders only in an appeal as per S.95 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

            2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant Shri Pankaj Kumar on the other hand submitted that if fraud is apparent in the respondent securing the registration, the Board may pass such orders as are necessary and the powers of the Board shall not be restricted only to appeals for passing interim orders.

            3. . The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are the registered proprietors of the mark "GOLD MEDAL" and they have been using the said mark for a considerable duration and their mark "GOLD MEDAL" has been applied for registration on 1.04.1986 and registration was granted on 28.04.1995. The learned counsel submitted that the case of the respondent is that they have bonafide and genuinely adopted the mark "MEDAL". In ORA/241/2010/TM/KOL" the registration was applied for on 06.03.1986 and registration was obtained on 08.10.2007.   In ORA/242/2010/TM/KOL registration was applied for on 30.06.1997 and registration was granted on 23.05.2005. The learned counsel submitted that the case of the respondent is that Ramesh Shah, one of the partners of the firm Medal Sales conceived and adopted the trade mark honestly on 05.02.2002 and since then they have been using the said trade mark. This is filed in the evidence in support of the application in. the opposition proceedings with regard to another mark not related to these ORAs. In the counter statement filed in this ORA, they have stated that they claim that Ramesh is the Director and he has given licence to use the said registered trade mark to Medal Electronics Private Limited from 26.08.1997 (ORA 242/2010/TM/KOL).

4.      The learned counsel submitted that to prove user the respondent herein has relied on the user by the licensee under two alleged licence agreements one dated 18.06.1987 and the other dated 26.08.1997.  The documents produced along with the counter statement also show sales only by Medal Electronics Private Limited herein. His case in the counter statement is also that after the registration he has given the licence to use to Medal Electronics which has used the mark continuously and extensively and that he is the Director of the said Company. Copies of the licence agreements have been enclosed in the paper book. The learned counsel for the applicant made the following submissions:

(i) that the address of the parties shows that the place of business is Kolkata. According to the learned counsel it is only after 2000 that the city’s name was spelt as 'KOLKATA' and before that it was spelt as 'Calcutta;

(ii) the learned counsel pointed out that on the reverse of page 1 of the agreement the name of the Stamp Vendor is the same person from whom they had purchased the stamp paper for one document of the year 1987 and for the other document which is of the year 1997. The learned counsel submitted that it is difficult to believe the genuineness of these documents as the hand writing is also the same.

4.      We requested the learned counsel for the respondent to produce the original documents since as per Rule 12 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003, the originals of the exhibits shall be left in the Appellate Board.

          “12. Exhibits :- -

          Where there are exhibits to affidavits,  a copy each of such exhibits shall          be sent to the other party. The originals shall be left in the Appellate Board   for inspection of the other party. These shall be produced at the hearing        unless the Appellate Board otherwise directs”.

          The learned counsel produced a document which is not the original of the document filed.  However, he submitted that he would be able to produce it if the Board so directs. 

5.      We find that not only the Stamp Vendor is the same, even the two witnesses to the documents are the same persons, one Biswajitmitra and Barun kumar Dey.  It strains our credulity to accept that two documents ten years apart, the party could have approached the same stamp vendor and the same witnesses.  However, to afford an opportunity to the respondent,  the respondent shall send the original of these two documents addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Intellectual Property Board on or before 17.04.2012 after sending a Xerox copy of the said document to the counsel for the applicant and after pursuing the same we will dispose of these two interim applications and orders will be passed on 18.04.2012.  

12.    The petition for stay was refused by the other Bench and both the ORAs was listed for final hearing.  At the hearing, Shri H.P.Shukla, Counsel for the respondent produced the original bill books for scrutiny which were perused and returned.

13.    From a perusal of aforementioned facts, a few firm conclusion based on disputed facts can be clearly inferred: 

(a)  The applicant were the first to adopt GOLD MEDAL and its variant from 1979-80 onwards.  The applicant’s earliest application under No.449794 in Class 9 dates back to 17^th February, 1986 which date is prior to the respondents earliest application under no.450653 also in Class 9 filed on 6^th March, 1986. 

(b)  The respondent B. Ramesh Shah by his own admission in ORA/241/2010 adopted MEDAL as a trade mark on 10^th July, 1997 and assigned the same to M/s MEDAL ELECTRONICS (Pvt.) Ltd. on 26^th  August, 1997.

(c)  The respondent Ramesh Shah also holds another registration for the trade mark MEDAL in Class 9 as of 6^th March, 1986 even though the said mark was only ‘proposed to be used’ on the date of filing under no. 450653.

14.    The disputed  facts are alleged use claimed by respondent from 1986 and also the authenticity of license agreement.   We need to examine the record to ascertain facts.  We will first look into the evidence filed in ORA/241 & 242/2010 filed by the respondent.  The company M/s MEDAL ELECTRONIC(P) Ltd. was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies on 25^th March, 1986.  The company was registered as a dealer for TV set under the Central Sales Tax Act on 14^th April, 1987.    Several copies of invoices towards advertisement effected by Medal Electronics (P) Ltd from 31^st August, 1989 onwards have been enclosed.  Also invoices dated 21.09.1987 (Bill No. 12/87) from page 64  to  page 162 are only proof of sale of TV and parts thereof by MEDAL ELECTRONICS (P)Ltd.  It is only from page 163 to page 166 (4 bills in all) that MEDAL TV is rubber stamped boldly in the middle of the bill.  Page 163 is reproduced below for easy understanding. 

          Y 1 63

15.    Other three invoices are similar bills.  Pages 167 to 240 contain even more  Invoices.   Bill No.8521 most of which are not trustworthy (Page 187) is reproduced as an example.

           

               

16.    In para 5 of the Counter Statement the year-wise sales figure and promotional expenses  under  the  trademark  MEDAL  has  been  furnished  from  1986 -  87 onwards by the respondent.

17.    Objection has been raised that both the impugned marks cannot be registered on absolute grounds of refusal under Section 9 of the Act.   It is true that the eligibility to cross a hurdle on absolute ground of refusal is of a low threshold.  The simple question to be put by the Examiner at the examination stage is whether the mark applied for is capable of distinguishing the goods/services of the applicant?  In other words does it have a distinctive character?  That has to be decided and determined by whether other traders are in competition with each other in the market place.  It should be looked at from a practical and business like objection.  As has been held in Shredded Wheats Case (1938) 55 RPC 125  at  p.145(PC)   “ a word or words to be really distinctive of a person’s goods must generally be incapable of application to the goods of anyone else”.  Once the registrar makes a determination that GOLD MEDAL is a badge of origin of a particular manufacturer, he should not undermine his own ruling by assisting other in the trade to extinguish that ‘Capability to distinguish’ by flooding the register with similar  trade marks.  We therefore, need to take an integrated perspective of whether the impugned mark qualifies for registration under Section 9.   Looking at the totality of the picture and given that GOLD MEDAL is already a prior applicant at the revocation stage we have to uphold an objection on absolute ground under Section 9.    In our view,  the respondent’s mark is incapable of distinguishing the origin of their goods.   

18.    The applicant has also raised objections that the impugned mark was wrongly registered in contravention of Section 11 of the Act.  The fact is on the date of filing of the respondent’s mark,  the applicant’s trade mark GOLD MEDAL was pending. In these circumstance was the acceptance and subsequent registration of MEDAL trade mark valid?.  What would be the legal consequences of this?.  Would it not lead to deception or confusion in the market?  The right test to determine this is, on the balance of probabilities, whether a substantial number of applicant’s customer or potential customers would be misled into purchasing the respondent’s goods in the belief that it was that of the applicant?   We do think  that will be the case here. 

19.    The respondent have placed great reliance on the contention that the competing goods are poles apart and relate to different markets and there is no question of confusion.  The respondents are in the manufacture and sale of TV business whereas the applicants are dealing wires and cables, electrical apparatus, air-conditioners etc.  In the vile atmosphere of the market place where cut throat competition is the order of the day these fine distinction counts for nothing.  The basic idea of the two mark GOLD MEDAL and MEDAL is the same.  We have material doubts why the impugned marks were adopted?  Most lay people will assume the respondent’s goods has something to do with applicant’s products.  Our first imperative is to ensure that there is no confusion in the market by the presence of two similar marks in the register.  In the dispensation of justice, the standard of proof to establish confusion in the market is low.  When an established brand like GOLD MEDAL is modified and a trade mark MEDAL is adopted for use, there is an inherent and substantial likelihood of confusion.  We also do not think the respondent are entitled to the benevolent provision of Section 12.  The root of our distrust is why did the respondent adopt and apply for a similar mark within three weeks of filing of an application for GOLD MEDAL in 1986?  Looked at from a different perspective, the competing marks are essentially the same  as the use of ‘GOLD’ in  GOLD MEDAL is only a qualifying  epithet.  The registration and use in the market of the respondent’s mark MEDAL only impairs the originality and distinctive character of the applicant’s trade mark.   When we apply the notional and fair use test,  the rival trade marks are confusingly similar.  Section 11(1) would thus be a bar to the registration of the impugned marks.   

20.    We all know that as  between two parties, the person who adopts the mark first will get preferential right over the other.  The applicant herein adopted the trade mark GOLD MEDAL in 1979 and applied for its registration on 17^th February, 1986.  The respondent applied for registration of MEDAL some days  later on 6^th March, 1986 as a ‘proposed mark’.  The earliest invoice of the respondent on record is a bill (no.12/87) dated 21^st September, 1987.   The person who makes an application for registration must assert a claim to be the proprietor of the trade mark and should be able to substantiate the claim if challenged (Vitamin Ltd’s Application) 1956 RPC 1.  It would appear adoption of the impugned mark was probably influenced by the presence of the applicant’s mark in the market 8 years before the respondent’s trade mark was born.   Even if we take that the original adoption was semi-independent, the likelihood of deception and confusion existed from day one.  What do we make of a trader adopting the trade mark MEDAL with presumptive knowledge of GOLD MEDAL already in the market for similar good;  an expert in greed  - an accursed brood.  In our view, the adoption of MEDAL as a trade mark was intentional and not accidental to dupe potential customers in the future.  A mark grows by use and with time.  The object of creating the required deception in the market is accomplished through efflux of time and subintentional smokescreen.  From surrounding circumstances, an inference can be drawn that the adoption and use of the trade mark MEDAL is not within the normal boundaries of fair use.  One of the cornerstone in civilized society is the general principle   “Thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s  house ”. These rules and concept apply with equal force to intellectual property.  If you ‘covet’,  ‘steal’  adopt or masquerade someone else’s property or trade mark after suitable window-dressing,  such an act is basically unacceptable.  Therefore, in our view both the original adoption and subsequent use of MEDAL by the respondent is deliberate, dishonest, lacking in probity

and not in conformity with standards of a reasonable and honest person.  GOLD MEDAL is a recognisable sign which identifies products of the applicant falling in Class 9.   Procuring a rival trade mark through stealth mode by quietly securing registration of  a similar mark for similar goods is ultimately intended to mislead the public and encash on goodwill of existing player.  Every registered proprietor craves for certainity and guarantee in the protection of his mark.  Every thing points to the fact that the respondent have camouflaged the applicant’s mark to overcome legal pitfalls and exploit the power of free market.   The common man’s brain is not wired to understand the difference  between MEDAL and GOLD MEDAL.  Clearly, the adoption and use of MEDAL is a disingenuous misrepresentation and the question how the registry allowed the mark to go in the register and its ramifications is both troubling and unsettling.   Accordingly, the claim of ownership/ proprietorship of the impugned mark cannot be accorded to the respondent and the registration of the two marks is also hit by Section 18(1) of the Act.  We also leave open our views on the veracity of the license agreement although everything points to the fact that it is a suspect document. 

21.    In the result both  ORA 241 & 242/2010 is allowed and registered trade mark under No.450653 and 756461 are both removed from the register.   There is no order as to costs. 

(V.RAVI)                                                                                 (S.USHA)

Technical Member                                                       Vice Chairman

(Disclaimer: This order is being published for present information and should not be taken as a certified copy issued by the Board.)