Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2010) 12 IPAB CK 0004

Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The Indian Law, Trading As Sahajanand Laser Technology vs Sahajanand Technology Pvt. Ltd. And The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · Decided on 31 December 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Usha, J · Syed Obaidur Rahaman, Technical Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
M.P. Nos. 33/09 In ORA/114/06/TM/AMD

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 402 words

S. Usha, J

1.

The original rectification application has been filed for removal of the registered trade mark under No. 902852 in class 7. The applicant has filed

miscellaneous petition for a direction to take on record, the additional evidence which are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter pertaining to

the impugned trade mark. The applicant stated that the facts are subsequent developed after filing the instant rectification application and prays that

the same may be placed.

2.

The 1st Respondent herein filed their reply to the miscellaneous petition stating that the miscellaneous petition is not maintainable in law. The instant

miscellaneous petition has been filed with malafide intention only to file additional documents which cannot be entertained. The present miscellaneous

petition is baseless and vague. The applicant is only trying to drag the matter and is trying to place new facts on record which are not connected to the

present rectification application. In fact, the rectification application has been filed in the year 2006 and the applicant is trying to bring in the

proceedings pending before the Civil Court in a suit filed in the year 2008 which is not relevant to this case.

3.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the interest of the justice, the additional documents may be taken on record and the

miscellaneous petition be allowed.

4.

Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the miscellaneous petition and submitted that the documents which are being relied on at this

belated stage were in the custody of the applicants and ought to have been filed at the time of filing the rectification application. Counsel also relied on

the judgments to say that these documents cannot be entertained at this belated stage.

5.

We have heard and considered the arguments of both the counsel. The instant rectification application is a proceeding like a suit where the

additional documents can be entertained. It is also the principle of law and the view of the various High Court that evidence should not be shut down

for no reason. In such circumstances, we are also of the view that the additional evidence are being taken on record with liberty being granted to the

Respondent to file their reply affidavit of evidence along with documents if any within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Miscellaneous petition is disposed of in the above terms.