Introduction:
The case before us is "Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencie Vs Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd." This is a trademark dispute that has been adjudicated in the High Court of Delhi, with Justice Mini Pushkarna presiding. The case involves a petition for the removal of the trademark "GARNISH" registered under no. 2970803 and 2970802 in Class 6 in favor of Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 1), and a subsequent application for rectification of the register of Trade Marks under Section 47/57/125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Background:
The petitioner, Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencie, claims the right to the trademark "GARNISH" based on its prior use and recognition in a civil suit (CS(OS) 1697/2005). The petitioner's father, Mr. H.S. Sethi, initiated the business and allowed the petitioner to use the trademark "GARNISH" in 1983. Disputes arose within the family, leading to litigation and an eventual settlement. The petitioner seeks to remove the trademark registration from Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and rectify the register, arguing that there is no evidence of the respondent's use of the trademark and that the petitioner has been recognized as the rightful user.
Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:
The primary legislation applicable in this case is the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Act pertain to the rectification of the register, the removal of registered trademarks, and the rights of registered users, respectively. These provisions enable parties to seek corrections or cancellations in the register of trademarks if there are grounds to do so, such as non-use, improper registration, or changes in trademark ownership.
Issue of the Case:
The central issue is the ownership and rightful use of the trademark "GARNISH." The petitioner contends that despite the trademark being registered in the name of Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner has been recognized and approved by a judicial order to use the trademark, and there is no evidence of the respondent's use of the trademark. The petitioner argues that the registration should be removed and the register rectified to reflect the petitioner's rights.
Reason of Court:
The court, after hearing the counsel for both parties and perusing the terms of settlement, found that the petitioner's submissions regarding prior use and non-use by the respondent remained un-rebutted. The court noted that the trademark "GARNISH" had been assigned to the petitioner and recognized her right to use the mark since 1983. The court acknowledged the settlement between the petitioner and her family members, which further supported the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision:
In view of the amicable settlement, the court decreed the present suit in terms of the application marked as Exhibit C-1, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The court ordered a decree sheet to be drawn up accordingly, and dismissed the application and O.A. (Order of Application) as the suit stands decreed. This decision effectively upholds the petitioner's rights to the trademark "GARNISH" and directs that the register of trademarks be rectified to reflect this outcome.
Case Citation: Irvinder Kaur Chadha Supreme Agencies Vs Garnish Electronics Pvt. Ltd: 30.07.2024: 2024/DHC/6223: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 123/2021: Mini Pushkarna, H.J.
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
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.
