Bright Electricals Vs Mr. Ramesh Shah,

COMMENT: IN VIEW OF FABRICATION IN THE BILLS/INVOICES, THE TRADEMARK WAS ALLOWED TO BE CANCELLED FROM THE REGISTER.

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.)

VEE EXCEL DRUGS VS HAB PHARMACEUTICALS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


  CS(OS) 1851/2008





  VEE EXCEL DRUGS and

  PHARMACEUTICALS(P) LTD. ..... Plaintiff

  Through Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate.



versus



  HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and

  RESEARCH LTD. ..... Defendant

  Through Ms. Sushani, Advocate.



  CORAM:

  SH. GIRISH KATHPALIA (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR





   O R D E R

   11.04.2012



  IA No. 18248/2011 (under Order VII Rule 14 CPC)



  Despite opportunity reply was not filed. I have heard both the
  learned counsel on this application.

  By way of this application, plaintiff seeks permission to place on
  record certain additional documents, which is strongly opposed by the
  learned counsel for defendant.

  It is submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff that they seek
  permission to place on record additional documents by way of three sets.
  First set consists of certain documents filed in CS (OS) No. 1007/05 by
  one M/s. Ma Gayatri, a partnership firm who is stranger to the present
  suit. As per plaintiff case, they obtained rights of M/s. Ma Gayatri to
  use the trade mark impugned in the present suit and amendment to
  incorporate those facts was allowed vide order dated 12.08.09; subsequent
  to framing of issues, plaintiff came to know about certain documents
  filed earlier by M/s. Ma Gayatri in CS (OS) No. 1007/05 which would have
  bearing on the present suit as well, as such, plaintiff applied certified
  copies of the said documents which are now sought to be placed on record
  in this case as additional documents. Second set of documents are order
  dated 08.08.2011 of Intellectual Property Appellate Board, whereby

  registration of the impugned trade mark in the name of the present defendant was cancelled. Third set of additional documents is certain
  bills and invoices which were already in possession of plaintiff but
  could not be filed due to lapse on the part of previous law offer of
  plaintiff company.

  In opposition to the application, learned counsel for defendant
  submits that so far as order dated 08.08.2011 of IPAB is concerned, the
  defendants have no objection if the same is taken on record. But as
  regards remaining two sets of additional documents namely certified
  copies of documents pertaining to CS (OS) No. 1007/05 and bills and
  invoices, defendants strongly oppose on the grounds that the same are
  being filed at much belated stage. Learned counsel for defendants submits
  that the said documents ought to have been filed alongwith amended plaint
  way back in the year 2009 itself. Learned counsel for defendant also made
  a reference to order dated 09.11.2010 whereby right of plaintiff to file
  evidence was closed followed by order dated 08.12.2010 whereby right to
  lead plaintiff evidence was restored. It is further submitted by learned
  counsel for defendant that even the present application was brought much
  belatedly in November, 2011, though the issues were framed in September,
  2010.

  In support of application, learned counsel for plaintiff places
  reliance on the judgment of Hon?ble Delhi High Court in the case titled
  as Vijay Kumar Geol vs DDA, IA No. 6254/007 of CS (OS) No. 2537/2000
  decided vide order dated 21.07.09 passed by Hon?ble Ms. Justice Aruna
  Suresh.

  In the case Kapil Sharma vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma, MANU/SC/1170/2009,
  the Hon?ble Supreme Court expressed disagreement with the view taken by
  the Hon?ble Division Bench and held that since the witness of the
  applicant was yet to step into the box for cross examination, filing of
  additional documents by the applicant ought not to have been disallowed.
  In the present case also, the admitted position is that till date
  plaintiff?s evidence is yet to commence.

  It is nobody?s case that the additional documents now being sought
  to be filed are not relevant to the present dispute. Rather as described
  above, one of the sets of the additional documents pertains to the facts
  already allowed to be pleaded by way of amendment of the plaint. As
  regards third set of additional documents namely bills and invoices, I
  find no reason to disbelieve that due to lapse of previous law officer of
  plaintiff company the same were not filed.

  The fact remains that plaintiff evidence is yet to commence, so no
  prejudice would be caused to the defendant by taking the additional
  documents on record.

  So far as the issue of delay is concerned, it is cardinal principle
  of justice that disputes should be decided on merits instead of defaults
  and where the non-applicant can be compensated in terms of cost, such
  applications should not be thrown out merely on the grounds of delay.

  In view of above discussion, the present application is allowed and additional documents of plaintiff are taken on record subject to cost of
  `.20,000/- which shall be paid to the defendant.

  CS (OS) No. 1851/2008

  Since the additional documents so taken on record as above are not
  required to be put to the other side for admission/ denial of the
  documents, as submitted by both the sides, relist the matter for
  plaintiff evidence on 28th September, 2012 at 02:15 pm.

  Fresh chief affidavit of plaintiff shall be filed within four
  weeks, if required.







  SH. GIRISH KATHPALIA (DHJS)

  JOINT REGISTRAR

  APRIL 11, 2012

  ms





  $ 3
  

RAJ KUMAR SARAF VS VAIDYA NANDRAM GIGRAJ CHAMARIA

COMMENT-IN THE CANCELLATION PETITION, THE PETITIONER DID NOT PLEAED TO BE PERSON AGGREIVED. HOWEVER ON THE BAIS OF FACT THE HON'BLE COURT THAT THE PETITIONER FOR CANCELLATION IS THE PERSON AGGRIEVED

Delhi High Court

Raj Kumar Saraf, Proprietor M/S. ... vs M/S. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj

... on 19 July, 2013

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ RFA 86/2008
RAJ KUMAR SARAF, PROPRIETOR M/S. BINDAL
FOOD PRODUCTS .....

 Appellant Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh
Suman, Mr. Vikas Khera and
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocates



Versus


M/S. VAIDYA NANDRAM GIGRAJ CHAMARIA


 ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Behera, Advocate


% Date of Decision : July 19, 2013


CORAM:


HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI


JUDGMENT

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the Appellant - Raj Kumar Saraf seeks to assail the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the Copyright Board rectifying the Register of Copyrights by expunging the entry bearing No.A-66496/04 relating to the art work of the Appellant.
2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order by the Copyright Board may be briefly delineated as follows.
RFA 86/2008 Page 1 of 15
3. The Respondent - Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria had filed an application under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 before the Copyright Board for expunging/deleting the registration of the artistic work of the Appellant registered as Registration No.66496/04 dated 26.2.2004 from the Register of Copyright. As per the averments made in the rectification petition, the Respondent firm had been in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Pansarat and Ayurvedic medicines ever since the year 1958 and had been issued Ayurvedic Drug License way back in the year 1983 vide License No.174 (A & U) dated 19.1.1983. Besides, the Respondent had also applied for sales tax registration number for carrying on the aforesaid business in the territory of Delhi in the year 1979 and had been issued Sales Tax Registration No.LC/03/019829 dated 17.2.1979. The Respondent had earned tremendous goodwill in the market in relation to manufacturing and marketing of several Ayurvedic and Pansarat products including "Vijay Hingoli". The Respondent was holding various registered trademarks and an application for registration of "Vijay Hingoli" was pending consideration before the Trademarks Registry. The said product, viz., "Vijay Hingoli" had been launched in 1981 and was being marketed in bottles and plastic packs ever since 1981 and from the year 1991 in pouches. The Respondent in paragraph 5 of the petition has set out its sales figures for the year 1994-95 till 2003-04 and submitted that ever since 1981 it had been marketing its product "Vijay Hingoli" using the artistic work and get up enclosed with the petition. During the course of marketing of the said product, the Respondent had issued several advertisements in newspapers, audio-
RFA 86/2008 Page 2 of 15 video cassettes, magazines, glow signs, banners, advertisements on the body of DTC buses, wall painting and other ancillary modes of advertisements, portraying and advertising the said artistic work and get up, samples whereof were enclosed for the perusal of the Copyright Board. It was alleged that the Appellant - Shri Raj Kumar Saraf (the Respondent before the Copyright Board) was fully aware of the existence of the Respondent in the market in relation to the manufacturing and marketing of Pansarat and Ayurvedic products and specifically the product "Vijay Hingoli". It was asserted that the father of the Respondent, namely, Shri Shiv Kumar Saraf is a blood relation/cousin of the members of the Respondent firm and hailed from the same village in the State of Rajasthan. The said Shri Raj Kumar Saraf surreptitiously and with malafide intention made an application before the Registrar of Copyrights on 26.7.2003 to register the aforementioned artistic work and get up in his name by making some cosmetic changes therein in relation to the same product titled "Vijay Hingoli". In the said application, the Appellant represented before the Registrar of Copyrights that he had been using the said artistic work and get up as well as name since 1995. The Registrar accordingly issued registration No.A-66496/04 on 26.2.2004. The Respondent came to know about the fact through an advertisement given by the Appellant in a local newspaper, namely, Sandhya Times on 24.11.2004, thus compelling the Respondent to file the rectification petition before the Copyright Board.
4. The Copyright Board on consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and after appreciating the documents filed by both the
RFA 86/2008 Page 3 of 15 parties passed the impugned order cancelling the registration of the Appellant by expunging the entry bearing No.A-66496/04 made in favour of the Appellant in the Copyright Register.
5. We have heard the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the documentary evidence on record. The Appellant has assailed the order of the Copyright Board principally on the ground that in the year 1995 the Appellant as the sole proprietor of Bindal Food Products had conceived, coined and authored the artistic label comprising of a human bust, having small moustache on the face, bearing spectacles on eyes and wearing a cap on the head (hereinafter referred to as " the human bust") and the words ANMOL-G VIJAYA & HING GOLI known as ANMOL-G VIJAYA HING GOLI. On 10.6.2003, the Appellant had applied for registration of its copyright before the Registrar of Copyright, which was granted by the Registrar on 26.2.2004 under No.A-66496/04. The said art work was duly made public by the Appellant by different modes of media through advertising, letter pads, bills/invoices, distribution of trade literature, hoardings, etc. The Appellant had also been very prompt in safeguarding his right in the said art work/label against violation thereof by various infringers and in this behalf had filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No.1233/04, titled as Shri Raj Kumar Saraf vs. M/s. G.K. Products before the Delhi High Court, which was later compromised and decreed in favour of the Appellant. Further, in order to obtain statutory rights over the trademark VIJAYA and ANMOL-G, trademark applications on behalf of the Appellant's firm, M/s. Bindal Food Products were filed on 5.11.2002 in Class 5, on
RFA 86/2008 Page 4 of 15 6.12.2001 in Class 30 and on 6.12.2001 in Class 05 and in Class 30. Out of the aforementioned trade applications, the earlier three trademarks now stand registered in favour of the Appellant firm, i.e., M/s. Bindal Food Products. On or about 25th day of December, 2004, the Respondent filed the rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 falsely alleging to be the owner and author of the impugned art work. On or about 26.3.2007, the Appellant filed his written statement along with supporting documents before the Copyright Board. The learned Board, however, ordered rectification of the Copyright Register by expunging the registration made in favour of the Appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission that the order of the Copyright Board is not sustainable raised the following contentions:-
(i) In the rectification petition, the Respondent nowhere alleged itself to be a person aggrieved, which is a sine qua non for maintainability of rectification petition and hence the same ought to have been dismissed.
(ii) In rectification proceedings, the onus was on the Petitioner (the Respondent herein) to establish that the publication of his art work was prior in point of time to the publication of the art work of the Appellant in terms of Section 3 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Not a single document was filed by the Respondent pertaining to the publication of the impugned art work prior to the art work of the Appellant.
RFA 86/2008 Page 5 of 15 (iii) The Appellant, on the other hand, had placed on record the letter head of M/s. M.M. Marketing Company to establish the prior publication of his art work which bore the date 15.5.1993. The said letter was carrying the human bust, which is the most essential feature of the said art work. The Appellant had also placed on record the affidavit of his brother Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (then trading as M/s. M.M. Marketing Company, B- 154, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-92) to show that the Appellant had allowed him to use the said bust on the letterhead and promotional material of M/s. M.M. Marketing Company but the learned Board had erroneously ignored the same.
(iv) The learned Board was wrong in not giving any benefit of the registered trademarks VIJAYA and ANMOL-G to the Appellant and in not considering the fact that the same form part of the art work of the Appellant.
(v) The Respondent had relied upon the impugned trademark/label application under No.70384 in Class 05, allegedly filed on 27.3.1996, claiming the user since the year 1981. However, in the impugned label, telephone No.2925206 (seven digit telephone number) is printed, and in the year 1981 seven digit telephone number was not in existence, leading to the inference that the Respondent is wrongly alleging the user of the impugned art work since the year 1981.
(vi) The learned Board ought to have dismissed the petition on the sole ground that the Registrar of Copyrights had not been made a party therein. The Board in this context erred in not following
RFA 86/2008 Page 6 of 15 the precedent laid down by it in its earlier judgment titled as Shree Sawaram Agarbatti Bhandar vs. Ghanshyam Perfumery & Co., 2007 (35) PTC 1001 (CB).
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent rebutted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant and relied upon the submissions made by it before the Copyright Board and the findings of the Copyright Board thereon.
8. Adverting in the first instance to the contention of the Appellant that in the rectification petition, the Respondent nowhere alleged itself to be a person aggrieved, which is a sine qua non for the maintainability of a rectification petition and hence the same ought to have been dismissed, we find the aforesaid contention to be factually incorrect. The impugned order in fact specifically records that the Respondent (the Petitioner before the Copyright Board) was a person aggrieved in terms of Section 50 of the Act in the following terms: "7. At the outset, it is necessary for us to determine as to whether it was obligatory upon the respondent to give a notice to the petitioner in terms of rule 16(3) of the Copyright Rules, 1958 while making an application to the Registrar for registration. Petitioner has claimed that the proprietors on both the sides are related and hail from the same village in Rajasthan. Further, both the parties deal in similar goods and thus possibly having the same network of dealers whereby knowing each other's presence in the market. We feel that these grounds by themselves are not sufficient to conclude for us that the respondent had knowledge about the
petitioner being an interested person in the matter. With a view to proceed further in the instant matter relating to rectification of the registration, it is essential to determine as to the petitioner being person
RFA 86/2008 Page 7 of 15 aggrieved in terms of section 50 of the Act. Both the petitioner and the respondent deal in similar goods and the impugned artistic work bears similarity to the artistic work and trade mark of the petitioner. We feel this is enough for us to infer that the petitioner is an aggrieved person in the matter."
9. As regards the contention of the Appellant with regard to publication of his art work being prior in point of time to the art work of the Respondent, we deem it expedient to refer to the definition of publication as set out in the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 3 of the said Act defines publication as follows:
"3. Meaning of publication. - For the purposes of this Act, "publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public."
10. It is beyond cavil that "publication" in any part of the Copyright Act, 1957 is to be understood in terms of its definition given in Section 3 of the Act as set out above. It also cannot be disputed that the word "publication" in Column 9 of the Statement of Particulars of Form 4, which is required to be submitted for registration of Copyright, is to be understood as defined in Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act, as noted above, stipulates that for the purposes of the Copyright Act, "publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. Thus, the work can be made available to the public either by issuance of copies or by communicating the work to the public. Section 2(ff) provides a definition for "communication to the public" as under:
RFA 86/2008 Page 8 of 15 "2. Interpretation. -In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
............................................
(ff) "communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made available.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause,
communication through satellite or cable or any other means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of residence including
residential rooms of any hotel or hostel shall be deemed to be communication to the public."
11. The submission of the Respondent before the Copyright Board was that the Appellant had made false averments before the Registrar as to the "publication" of the work being that of 1995. It was also submitted that the Appellant was in violation of the proviso to Sub- Section (1) of Section 45 of the Act having not made the necessary declaration and not having obtained the certificate from the Registrar of Trademarks. For the sake of ready reference, Section 45 of the Act is reproduced as under:
"45. Entries in register of Copyrights.- (1) The author or publisher of, or the owner of or other person interested in the copyright in, any work may make an application in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee to the Registrar of Copyrights for entering particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights :
[Provided that in respect of an artistic work which is used or is capable of being used in relation to any
RFA 86/2008 Page 9 of 15 goods, the application shall include a statement to that effect and shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks referred to in section 4 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, to the effect that no trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered under that Act in the name of, or that no application has been made under that Act for such registration by, any person other than the applicant.]"
12. A look at the documentary evidence on record shows that in the instant case the Appellant in the application filed by it for registration of its art work, under Column 9, has claimed the year of first publication as 1995. In the written statement filed by it, the Appellant has submitted that he had authored/conceived portrait of bust of human being having small moustache on the face, bearing spectacles on eyes and wearing cap on the head in the year 1993 and had allowed his brother Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, then trading as M/s. M.M. Marketing Company to use the said bust on the letterhead and promotional materials of M/s. M.M. Marketing Company. He has also placed on record the affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal in this regard. As rightly observed by the Copyright Board, however, there is no primary evidence placed on record by the Appellant to substantiate his authorship of this art work. The earliest document adduced in evidence relates to the year 1993 being the aforesaid letter dated 15.5.1993 written by the proprietor of M/s. M.M. Marketing Company on the printed letter pad of the firm to the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No.083, Bikrikar Bhawan requesting for an extension of period to complete the requirements of some registration. The original of this
RFA 86/2008 Page 10 of 15 letter has not been produced and only a photocopy has been placed on record. A cursory look at the bust on the said photocopy shows that the said art work/bust is not the same as the art work/bust appended to the application for registration on 28.7.2003. Further, the said art work has the word "Rajasthani" appearing behind it whereas in the art work appended to the application the words ANMOL-G HING GOLI appear at the top with several other inscriptions on the said art work on all sides which are conspicuously absent on the letterhead of M.M. Marketing Company. Further, the Appellant himself has submitted in paragraph 3 of his written statement that he conceived, coined and authored the art work in 1995 and in view of his said statement it is not understandable as to how the art work appears in a letterhead of M/s. M.M. Marketing Company dated 15.5.1993. In such circumstances, the Board has rightly observed that inscription of some mark which bears no similarity to the impugned artistic work on the letter pad of a third person indicating no authorship of the work is no publication in terms of the provisions of the Act.
13. Other documents cited by and relied upon by the Appellant also do not substantiate the case of the Appellant of prior publication of his art work. As regards the reliance placed by the Appellant on the filing of CS (OS) No.1233/2004, the said suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi by the Appellant against M/s. G.K. Product, in the year 2004 which resulted in a settlement in the same year. The filing of this suit, therefore, does not substantiate the case of the Appellant in any manner. Reliance placed by Appellant on trademark registrations is also wholly misplaced. The Appellant filed an application for
RFA 86/2008 Page 11 of 15 registration of the word VIJAYA per se as trademark on 5.11.2002, which application was advertised in the Trademarks Journal on 25.11.2003. Trademark No.1148151 effective from 5.11.2002 was issued on 5.3.2005. Therefore, this too does not further the case of the Appellant with regard to prior publication of his art work. The only other documents are copies of bills relatable to the years 2002 to 2004 evidencing the sale of the products of the Appellant, including ANMOL-G VIJAYA HING GOLI. Needless to state that these bills are of no help to the Appellant in proving the fact of publication of the artistic work in 1995 as they do not carry the art work on them. In the affidavit of the brother of the Appellant Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, reference is made to "promotional material" which allegedly carries the art work of the Appellant, but no such promotional material has seen the light of the day either before the Copyright Board or before this Court. Indubitably, the newspaper advertisements carrying the art work of the Appellant are there on record, but these advertisements relate to the year 2004 and can provide no benefit to the Appellant.
14. The Respondent, on the other hand, has proved through overwhelming evidence that his art work was published as far back as in the year 1996, that he was manufacturing and marketing Ayurvedic medicines including "Vijay Hingoli" ever since 1981 and started marketing the said product in pouches in 1991. Petitioner in evidence submitted as Ex.P1 and P2 his applications for necessary Ayurvedic licensing and Sales Tax registrations, P3 is the copy of the label of his mark, P4 are the copies of the vouchers and bills for advertisement expenditures. He has also placed on record the acknowledgments
RFA 86/2008 Page 12 of 15 dated 27.3.1996 issued by the Registrar of Trademarks Office in favour of Ram Awatar Chamaria trading as Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria, Tilak Bazar, Delhi. This document which carries the acknowledgment of the Registrar of Trademarks contains the art work of the Respondent and is dated 22nd March, 1996 and in the column "User Claimed" specifically states "Since the year 1981".
15. We also find no merit in the contention of the Appellant that the Copyright Board erred in not giving any benefit of the registered trademarks VIJAYA and ANMOL-G to the Appellant and in not considering the fact that the same form part of the art work of the Appellant. The Copyright Board, in our opinion, has rightly observed that the underlying principles in relation to copyright law are different from those relating to trademark law, except that proviso to Section 45(1) provides that if the work is an artistic work which is used or is capable of being used in relation to any goods, the application shall include a certificate from the Registrar of Trademarks to the effect that no trademark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered under that Act in the name of any person other than the applicant or that no application has been made under that Act for such registration by any person other than the applicant. There is no provision in the Copyright Act for any premium to be accorded in respect of an artistic work in respect of which the trademark has been registered under the Trademark Act, 1999. Publication is a sine qua non under the Act for claiming authorship of an artistic work. A perusal of Rule 16 of the Copyright Rules, 1958 read with Form 4 shows that an applicant for registration of a copyright is required to
RFA 86/2008 Page 13 of 15 mandatorily file statement of particulars setting out whether the work is published or not and the year of publication, etc. In the instant case, the dealers profile of the Appellant Bindal Food Products placed on record shows that the Appellant commenced business on 18 th October, 2002. Thus, quite clearly the year of commencement of business set out in the application for registration of copyright, i.e., 1995 is a false declaration. The falsity of the case of the Appellant is also borne out from the affidavits of the brother of the Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar and the Appellant himself, which if taken on their face value show that the age of the brother of the Appellant was 33 years and the age of the Appellant was 35 years on the date on which the affidavit was sworn, thereby leading to the inference that Manoj Kumar was 19 years in the year 1993, and the Appellant himself as per his own affidavit was 17 years in the year 1993 when allegedly the Appellant assigned the artistic work created by him to his brother Manoj Kumar for the purposes of his firm M.M. Marketing Company. Even otherwise, no Assignment Deed has been placed on record by the Appellant and by virtue of the provisions of Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, no assignment of copyright in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing, signed by the assignor or by its duly authorized agent. Sub- Section (5) of Section 19 further provides that in case the period of assignment is not specified in the Assignment Deed, it shall be deemed to be 5 years from the date of assignment, meaning thereby that the assignment in any event even assuming there was an Assignment Deed (which is not even asserted by the Appellant), lapsed in the year 1998.
RFA 86/2008 Page 14 of 15
16. As regards the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent's advertisements carry a telephone number with seven digits, it has been explained by the Respondent that he had given the telephone number as existed in the year 1996 as part of his application which was submitted on 27th March, 1996.
17. As regards the non-impleadment of the Registrar of Copyrights as a necessary party to the petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, no such objection appears to have been raised by the Appellant before the Copyright Board as is evident from a perusal of the written statement of the Appellant filed before the Copyright Board and such objection must, therefore, be deemed to be waived. In any event, no specific provision in the Copyright Act or the Rules framed thereunder has been pointed out to us for putting the Registrar on notice in a petition for rectification of the Register. This being so, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Copyright Board on this objection belatedly taken by the Appellant to defeat the legitimate rights of the Respondent.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal fails and is dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGE
PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGE
July 19, 2013
km
RFA 86/2008 Page 15 of 15

SAURABH AGROTECH (P) LTD VS MOTIVE AGRO OILS PVT. LTD

COMMENT-INTIALLY THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GRANTED INJUNCTION. HOWEVER DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDING , THE PLAINTIFF BECOME THE REGISTERED PROPRIETOR. THE SUIT DECREED.

Delhi High Court

M/S Saurabh Agrotech (P) Ltd vs M/S. Motive Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 25 April, 2013

F-16
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(OS) 473/2009

M/S SAURABH AGROTECH (P) LTD
. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate.


versus


M/S. MOTIVE AGRO OILS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

.....Defendants Through: None.

% Date of Decision: 25th April, 2013.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1. The amended plaint in the present suit has been filed with the following prayers:-
"26. (a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself as also through its individual proprietors, partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trade mark/label ASHOKA or any other Trade Mark/Label identical with and/or deceptively similar to the said trademark/label ASHOKA of the plaintiff in relation to their impugned goods and business of edible oil (mustard oil) and related/allied products and from doing any other acts or deeds

CS(OS) 473/2009 Page 1 of 6 amounting to or likely to:-

(i) passing off and violation of the plaintiff's right in the said trademark/label ASHOKA.
(ii) falsification of plaintiff's trademark and indulgence in unfair and unethical trade practices.
(iii) infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark ASHOKA under no.1324290 in class 29.
(b) Restraining the defendants from disposing off or dealing with its assets including its premises at M/s Motive Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd., Hapur-245101, U.P. and Regd. Office at C-99B, Kanti Nagar Old, Delh-51 including its stocks-in-trade and such other assets as may be brought to the knowledge of this Hon'ble Court during the course of the proceedings and on its ascertainment by the plaintiff and/or disclosed by the defendants, as the plaintiff is not aware of the same, as per Section 135(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as it would adversely effect the plaintiff's ability to recover costs and accounts of profits.

(c) For an order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark/label ASHOKA, or any other deceptively similar trademark/label including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literatures and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure.

(d) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendants by their impugned illegal trade activities and a decree for the amount so found in favour of the plaintiff on such rendition of accounts.

(e) In the alternative a decree for grant of damages of Rs.20,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh and One Thousand only) from the defendants, jointly and severally to the plaintiff.

CS(OS) 473/2009 Page 2 of 6 (f) For an order for cost of proceedings, and (g) For such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, learned counsel for plaintiff fairly states that he does not wish to press prayers (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the prayer clause. The said statement is accepted by this Court and plaintiff is held bound by the same.

3. On 10th November, 2009, this Court dismissed the injunction application filed by the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff's trade mark ASHOKA was no longer registered and prima facie a case of passing off was not made out.

4. Subsequently, on 14th September, 2010, defendants were proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, ex parte evidence by way of an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff.

5. Today, the position is that the plaintiff is the owner of the registered trade mark ASHOKA vide Registration Certificate No.1324290 in class 29 which has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/34. Plaintiff has also led evidence to show that it has been using the mark ASHOKA continuously since the year 1975 for a wide range of edible oils like Mustard and Vegetable oil. The plaintiff has placed on record its VAT invoices, bills, trade literature, advertisements to show continuous use of the trade mark ASHOKA since the year 1975.

6. In the plaint, it is stated that in the beginning of December, 2008, plaintiff learnt that defendant had dishonestly adopted the plaintiff's trade mark ASHOKA. Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, learned counsel for plaintiff

CS(OS) 473/2009 Page 3 of 6 submits that both the trade marks in question are identical and/or deceptively similar in all respects including phonetically. He states that defendants have copied the essential features of the plaintiff's trade mark. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Shri Ambal and Co., Madras and Anr., AIR 1970 SC 146, wherein it has been held as under:- "3. ..................

The words, Ambal and Andal, have such great phonetic similarity that they are undistinguishable having the same sound and pronounciation. In whatever way they are uttered or spoken, slowly or quickly perfectly or imperfectly, meticulously or carelessly and whoever utters them, a foreigner or a native of India, wherever they are uttered in the noisy market place or in a calm and secluded area, over the phone or in person, the danger of confusion between the two phonetically allied names is imminent and unavoidable..................
xxx xxx xxx

6. ......It is for the court to decide the question on a comparison of the competing marks as a whole and their distinctive and essential features. We have no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is used in a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be known by its distinguishing feature "Andal". There is a striking similarity and affinity of sound between the words "Andal" and "Ambal". Giving due weight to the judgment of the Registrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that there is a real danger of confusion between the two marks."

7. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and having perused the ex parte evidence as well as documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has proved the facts stated in the plaint and has also

CS(OS) 473/2009 Page 4 of 6 exhibited the relevant documents in support of its case. Since the plaintiff's evidence has gone unrebutted, said evidence is accepted as true and correct.

8. This Court is also of the opinion that the triple identity test is satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the competing trade marks, products and class of purchasers are the same. In Jain Electronics Vs. Cobra Cables P. Ltd. & Ors., 2011(45) PTC 52 (Del), this Court has held as under:- "11. With there being a registered trade mark "Cobra" in the name of Respondent No.1, which has not been opposed by the Petitioner till date, there can be no doubt that grant of registration in respect of an identical mark in favour of the Petitioner would cause deception and confusion. The mark has been registered in favour of Respondent No.1 in respect of goods which included electrical apparatus. The Petitioner is seeking registration of an identical mark in respect of voltage stabilizers. It was sought to be urged that Respondent No.1's goods were electric cables whereas the Petitioner's were voltage stabilizers and therefore the goods were different. There can be no doubt that the electric cables are used in voltage stabilizers as well. The trade channel is essentially the same. The goods are available usually in the same place as well. Use of an identical mark in respect of the two goods is bound to cause deception and confusion in the market. The Deputy Registrar and the IPAB concurrently concluded that the triple identity test stood satisfied in the present case, particularly since the description of the goods is the same, the area of the sale and the trade channel are the same. This Court concurs with the said view. The registration in favour of Respondent No.1 dates back to 1980, whereas the Petitioner's invoices, all of which do not show use of the mark in relation to goods, is only since 1984. In the circumstances, the plea of concurrent user is not available to be taken by the Petitioner."

9. Consequently, as the trade mark, goods and class of purchasers are same, there is every possibility of confusion and deception. Further, this
CS(OS) 473/2009 Page 5 of 6 Court has considered the essential feature of both the trade marks in question and finds that the essential features are common.

10. Moreover, as the plaintiff is the prior adopter and continuous user of the mark ASHOKA, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in terms of prayer 26(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.


MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 25, 2013
js
CS(OS) 473/2009 Page 6 of 6

KIWI FOODS(INDIA) PVT LTD VS DUGAR SPICES

COMMENT: IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS RETURNED THE FINDING THAT USE OF TRADEMARK IN A CALENDER DOES NOT AMOUNT TO BE USE OF A TRADE MARK.



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  CS(OS) 2426/2009

  M/S KIWI FOODS(INDIA) PVT LTD

  ..... Plaintiff

  Through: Mr. A.A. Suman and Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocates




versus



  M/S DUGAR SPICES and EATABLES PVT LTD

  ..... Defendant

  Through: Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocate



  CORAM:

   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI



   O R D E R

   24.07.2013



  I.A. No.16410/2009

  I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The case of the plaintiff
  is that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of
  confectionary, snacks and namkeens and other related goods. The
  plaintiff claims that it has adopted the mark FUN POP since April 2005
  and has also been using FUN STAR and FUN RINGS. The plaintiff applied for
  registration of FUN POP on 08.04.2005 and for FUN STAR on 12.11.2007.
  FUN RINGS is applied for on 06.10.2008. All these applications were in
  respect of Class 30 and they are still pending.

  The plaintiff has placed on record the documents to show that it
  has been using, inter alia, FUN RINGS since 2008. Certain invoices
  issued by the plaintiff to the purchasers have been placed on record.
  The plaintiff has also filed the packaging used by both the parties. A
  bare comparison of the packaging adopted by the defendant shows that
  there is stark similarly in the two, and it is evident that by adopting
  similar packaging, the defendant has sought to pass of its products as
  that of the plaintiff. The words FUN and RINGS have been written more or
  less in the same font and in both the packaging, above the word FUN,

  there is a smiling face. The puffs which are sold in the packaging are also displayed on the packaging. In these circumstances, the plaintiff
  seeks ad interim injunctive relief.

  The case of the defendant, firstly, is that the plaintiff cannot
  appropriate the word FUN, which is generic. He further submits that the
  defendant has been using FUN RINGS since 2006. He, therefore, submits
  that the defendant is entitled to continue to use the mark FUN RINGS. In
  support of his case that the defendant has been using FUN RINGS since
  2006, the defendant has placed on record the calendar stated to have been
  circulated by it in the year 2006 and 2007. In these calendars apart
  from other products, the product FUN RINGS has also been displayed.
  However, the other documents placed on record, such as the invoices
  issued by the defendant show that the use of the mark FUN RINGS by the
  defendant is in the year 2009 and not before that.

  There appears to be merit in the submission of the defendant that
  the plaintiff cannot appropriate the word FUN in respect of the goods in
  question. At the same time, the combination of FUN with RINGS as FUN
  RINGS appears to have been adopted by the plaintiff earlier than adoption
  of the same by the defendant. Mere use of the picture of FUN RINGS on
  the calendar of the year 2006 does not establish the actual user of the
  said mark on the product by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is
  entitled to protection in respect of FUN RINGS. Moreover, the packaging
  adopted by the defendant, as aforesaid, is very similar to that of the
  plaintiff.

  Prima facie, it appears that the defendant has sought to pass of
  its goods as that of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is
  restrained from using, selling, displaying, advertising by visual audio
  or print mode with the mark/label FUN RINGS or any other trademark/label
  or packaging which is identical or deceptively similar to that of the
  plaintiff in respect of confectionaries, snacks and namkeens and other
  like products.

  Application stands disposed of.





  VIPIN SANGHI, J

  JULY 24, 2013

  sr

  $ 3