Krishan Kishore Khanna vs L.T. Overseas Ltd

S. Usha, J

This is an appeal arising out of the order dated 15.01.2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing the Opposition No. 171502

and allowing the Application No. 1201299 in Class 30 to proceed to registration as per the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The brief facts of

the case are as follows:

The respondent herein filed an application for registration of the trade mark ""DAAWAT"" (label) with descriptive matters under No. 1201299 in Class

30 in respect of rice on 10.08.2004. The user was claimed since 02.01.2003. The said application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No.

Mega 5 dated 14.11.2003 at page No. 7075. The appellant herein filed the notice of opposition opposing the registration.

2 . On completion of the pleadings the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Deputy Registrar heard the matter and passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved

by the impugned order, the appellant herein preferred the instant appeal on various grounds.

The respondent No. 1 herein had filed a detailed counter statement along with the documents. The appellant herein filed their rejoinder to the

counter statement.

The counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that the trade mark was advertised as a word mark whereas the application for registration was a

label mark. There was no association number given in the Trade Marks Journal advertisement whereas in the impugned order the Deputy Registrar

had allowed the registration with association.

5 . The very purpose of an advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal is to provide complete information in respect of the trade mark advertised so

that the public at large may receive clear information in respect of the trade mark. If the Trade Marks Journal advertisement does not provide

complete information or material particulars, any opponent is deprived of an opportunity of getting full information and is also deprived of filing an

effective opposition.

We also thing it fit to quote the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in Vriendra Sethi v. Kundan Das 2002 (25) PTC 50 (Del) -

it is the duty and responsibility of the concerned authorities under the Trade and Merchandise Act to ensure that the advertisement is published

properly and nothing is left vague and uncertain"".

In view of the above reasons, we thought it a fit case to be remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks and therefore did not go into the merits

of the case and also we did not hear the respondents as well and did not go into the findings of the Registrar in the impugned order. Consequently, the

impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Registrar of Trade Marks is directed to re-advertise

the trade mark as per the application filed by the respondent and thereafter deal with the matter in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of in

the above terms. Since the main appeal itself has been disposed of, no order is necessary in M.P. No. 21/2010 and the same stands disposed of

accordingly. No order as to costs.