Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Glaxo Group Limited vs Voltas Limited And Ors.

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · Decided on 13 January 2011 · Citation: (2011) 01 IPAB CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Usha, J · Syed Obaidur Rahaman, Technical Member
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Section 11(a), 12(1), 18(1)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
TA/224/04/TM/DEL (CM (M) 499/98)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 408 words

S. Usha, J

1.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi dated 4.2.1998. The Appellant M/s. GLAXO GROUP

LIMITED filed an applicatio No. 495267 for registration of the Trademark 'VOLMAX' in class 5 of Schedule-I of the Trade and Merchandise Marks

Act, 1958. The mark is proposed to be used. The first Respondent M/s. VOLTAS LIMITED filed their objection contending that the first Respondent

was using a series of names viz., VOLTAS, VOLFRUIT, VOLFARM VOLPUMP, VOLDRILL, VOLITA, VOLTRION, VOLDRUM, VOLLAM,

VOLRAM, VOL VOLSEAFOOD, VOLFAN and VOLPHOR. The Respondent is doing business a manufacturers/traders in a wide range of goods

like air conditioners, water coolers, voltage stabiliser, forklifts, trucks, cranes, switchgear, transformers, pharmaceutical and consumer products,

pesticides and insecticides, textile machinery, mining and constructions equipment and machinery etc. The registration of the impugned mark will be

contrary to Sections 12(1), 11(a) and 18(1) of the said Act. After considering the plea of both the parties, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks,

Delhi, in his impugned order upheld the objection of the first, Respondent, and consequently rejected the Appellant's application No. 495267 for

registration of the Trademark 'VOLMAX'.

2.

This Board after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on 15th March, 2006.

3.

The Appellant filed a writ petition (Civil) No. 9478 of 2006, and M.P. No. 7072/06 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the order of this Board.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court set aside the order on 5.2.2010 and consequently restored the appeal before this Board and gave a direction that the appeal

be decided afresh by the IPAB preferably within a period of six months

4 . Complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court the appeal was restored and the matter was heard. On 30.11.2010 the parties

agreed to the disposal of the appeal and filed a memo of consent terms. The Board directed them to file the memo of consent terms signed by the

parties concerned within four weeks to pass necessary orders.

5.

In compliance of the directions given by the Board dated 30.11.2010 the consent terms agreed to between the parties, duly signed by the authorized

representatives of the parties and their respective counsel has been filed on 23.12.2010.

6 . Accordingly the appeal stands disposed based on the consent terms agreed to between the parties. The consent terms shall form part of the order.

There shall be no order as to costs.