AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Usha, J
Applications for removal of the trade marks ""Fairever"" under Nos.1014841 in Class 3, 810756 in Class 3, 1249412 in Class 3 and 1255978 in Class 3
under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The applicants conceived and adopted the trade mark
Chandrika"" in the year 1939 through Mr.C.R. Kesavan Vaidyar who was trading as M/s. S.V. Products. The trade mark ""Chandrika"" was registered
under the Trade Marks Act, 1940 in the year 1956 under No. 177588 in Class 3 in respect of medicated and toilet soaps. The said C.R. Kesavan
Vaidyar gave concurrent rights to M/s. Lal Products and M/s. Chandrika Products for different geographical areas. The three entities, namely, M/s.
SV Products, M/s. Lal Products and M/s. Chandrika Productsjointly assigned the trade mark and copyright in the mark ""Chandrika"" along with the
goodwill to Wipro Chandrika Ltd. in the year 2004. By virtue of the said assignment, Wipro Chandrika Ltd. is the sole absolute proprietor of the said
trade mark and copyright ""Chandrika"".
2 . Wipro Chandrika Ltd. launched the product ""Chandrika Forever"" in 2007. Thereafter they applied for registration of the trade mark ""Chandrika
Forever"" under No. 1615601 in Classes 3 and 5 in respect of all kinds of soaps including Toilet soaps and Toiletry preparations in Class 3 and
Medicated Toiletry preparations like soaps, shampoos, Handwash, sanitizers etc. in Class 5 and the same was registered as there was no opposition.
The mark is being used only in the State of Andhra Pradesh through Wipro Ltd. and there is no sale outside the State of Andhra Pradesh.
3 . The trade mark ""Chandrika Forever"" has acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The annual sales turn over
runs to several crores of rupees since 2007 and they have spent huge amounts towards advertisement.
4 . In 2010, the respondent herein filed a Civil Suit No. 222 of 2010 against the applicant herein, before the Hon'ble Madras High Court for a
permanent injunction restraining the applicant from using the trade mark ""Chandrika Forever"" on the basis of the impugned registration of the trade
mark ""Fairever"" in Class 3. The impugned registrations are -
(i) 1014841 in Class 3 is associated with Trade Mark Nos.770706, 777196 an d 810756. Trade Mark Nos.770706 and 777196 have been withdrawn.
When a associated trade mark is withdrawn then the subject registration is also liable to be cancelled.
(ii) Trade Mark No. 1249412 in Class 3 is associated with 1014841. When Trade Mark No. 1014841 is non est in the eyes of law since its association
is withdrawn then No. 1249412 is also non est in law.
(iii) Trade Mark No. 1249413 in Class 3 is subject to a condition of disclaimer. Therefore the respondent has no exclusive right to use of the Trade
Mark ""Fairever"".
(iv) Trade Mark No. 1255978 in Class 3 is associated with 124912 and 1249413. Trade Mark No. 1249412 is non est in the eyes of law then 1255978
is also non est in law.
(v) Trade Mark No. 810756 is liable to be rectified considering the subsequent imposition of disclaimer in Trade Mark No. 1249413 in Class 3.
The applicant is a person aggrieved since the respondent has instituted a Civil Suit against the applicant. The suit is based on the registration which
is registered without sufficient cause and is wrongly remaining on the register.
The grounds of rectification are that -
(a) the registration is wrongly remaining on the register without sufficient cause;
(b) the registration of the trade mark ""Fairever"" is disentitled as it is absolutely descriptive of the intended purpose of the goods in respect of which the
mark is registered;
(c) the registration is contrary to the provisions of the Act;
(d) since the associated trade marks have been withdrawn, the subject registration is liable to be dismissed;
(e) the registration has been made without sufficient cause since it is contrary to Sections 9,11,18 of the Act.
(f) the registration is preventing bonafide marketers from using the trade mark in the course of trade;
(g) the registration has been allowed by deceit and is contrary to law;
(h) the registered trade mark lacks distinctiveness;
(i) the date of use since 1998 given by the respondent in the suit before the Hon'ble High Court is false. The respondent has given different dates in
different trade mark applications;
(j) the respondent is not the proprietor of the trade mark under Section 18(1) of the Act. The mark ""Fairever"" was first adopted by M/s. Vale Exports
Pvt. Ltd;
(k) the respondent has not complied with the necessary condition for subsistence of the mark in the register to record the change of address; and
(l) the search report reveals several marks pending and registered with the prefix or suffix ""Fair"", but the respondent has not initiated any action
against them.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned trade mark ""Fairever"" be rectified.
8 . The respondent herein filed their counter statement stating that the applicants adopted the trade mark ""Forever"" in July/August 2009 in respect of
soaps which is evident from the press statement released by the applicant. The applicant has been using ""Chandrika"" word per se only for last two
years. The respondents have been using the trade mark ""Fairever"" since 1998. The respondents trade mark ""Fairever"" has acquired distinctiveness
and secondary meaning amongst the public as early as in 2005 even before the applicants adopted the trade mark ""Forever"". The adoption of the trade
mark ""Fairever"" is phonetically, structurally identical or deceptively similar to the trade mark ""Forever"" which is clearly malafide and is to commit
unjust encroachment by encashing upon the reputation and goodwill held by the respondents. The applicant's adoption of the trade mark ""Forever
amounts to dilution of the respondents well known trade mark ""Fairever"".
9 . The applicant has claimed user since 2007 for the trade mark ""Forever"" in the application for registration (ORA/246/2010/TM/CH) whereas in the
pressstatement it is seen that it was only intended to be used as of July, 2008. Therefore the documents filed thereof are to be construed to be false
and fabricated.
The application for rectification has been filed on the ground that the registration in favour of the respondent is granted without sufficient cause
and not on the ground that it violates the intellectual property rights. The cause of action for the instant rectification application is that the Civil Suit
filed by the respondent and not any bonafide business interest which is threatened. Hence the present rectification application is a counter blast to the
suit filed by the respondent.
The respondent has been carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing ""Fairever"" cream and allied goods under the trade mark ""Fairever
for the past several years. Their products are well known and are in great demand among the public. The respondent was incorporated in 1990 under
the name and style Beauty Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the name was changed to CavinKare Private Limited in 1998. As on 31. 03.2007 the
respondent is a Rs.601.41 crores turnover company having a wide range of personal care products. The respondent also exports its products to over
12 countries and has earned over Rs.21.79 crores as on 31.03.2009 as foreign exchange. 12 . Since 1998, the respondent has been using the trade
mark ""Fairever"" for its cosmetics products continuously, uninterruptedly and extensively. The fairness cream enjoys a sizeable market share and is No.
2 brand in fairness creams category in India.
The respondent conceived and adopted the trade mark through another company named Vale Exports a closely held company of the brother of the
respondents promoter who had applied for registration of the very same trade mark. By virtue of assignment deed dated 30.8.2001 the registration
was assigned in favour of the respondents. The same has been filed before the Registrar of Trade Marks for recordal.
1 4 . The respondent has spent substantial amounts towards advertisement of the trade mark. The respondent has advertised in various media
including televisions, newspapers, magazines, etc. Thus the trade mark has acquired distinctiveness among the general public. The sales turnover and
the expenses incurred towards advertisement as certified by the Chartered Accountant are filed which show that the sales turn over is approximately
about Rs.51,635 lakhs for the year 1998 to 2009 and a sum of approximately Rs.9,109 lakhs for the period 2003 to 2009 towards advertisement. Due
to intensive sales and advertisement the trade mark ""Fairever"" has become a well known trade mark.
In November, 2009 the respondent received enquiries from the dealers, stockists and retailers as to whether the respondent had launched a new
soap ""Forever"". Upon enquiry, the respondent became aware that the applicant had started to manufacture and market a cosmetic soap under a
deceptively similar trade mark with malafide intention of making illegal gains out of the reputation earned by the respondent. The said act of the
applicant is evident from the fact that though the applicant group company have applied for and obtained registration for the trade mark ""Chandrika
Forever"" but only ""Forever"" is being used by the applicant.
1 6 . The rival trade marks are identical/deceptively similar and there is a strong likelihood of the consumers getting confused and deceived by
associating the applicant's products with the respondents well known trade mark. Both the applicants and respondents goods are purchased by both
literate and illiterate consumers who will be certainly deceived into believing that the applicants goods emanate from the respondents. The respondents
filed a Civil Suit before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the same is pending. It was in the suit proceedings the respondents became aware that
the applicants are registered proprietors of the trade mark ""Forever"". The applicant has obtained registration of the trade mark ""Forever"" by playing
fraud upon the registry and has claimed use of the impugned trade mark ""Chandrika Forever"" since 1939.
The respondent is the lawful proprietor of the trade mark ""Fairever"" and the same has been extensively used for more than a decade and has thus
attained a secondary meaning apart from distinctiveness. This rectification application is only a counter blast to the suit.
The respondent therein filed an application for cross rectification of the trade mark ""Chandrika Forever"" registered under No. 1615601 in Class 3
and 5 registered in the name of the applicants therein under Section 57 of the Act.
1 9 . The respondent had reiterated the facts stated in the counter statement to ORA/97 to 100/2010/T/CH and had based the application on the
following grounds:
(a) that the impugned registration remains on the register without sufficient cause and the entry is defectively made on the register;
(b) that the trade mark is not capable of distinguishing of any goods;
(c) that the adoption is tainted with malafide intention;
(d) that the registration has been obtained by false statements;
(e) that the impugned trade mark ""Chandrika Forever"" is identical/deceptively similar to the respondents mark ""Fairever"";
(f) that the respondent is the prior user and registered proprietor of the trade mark ""Fairever"";
(g) that the applicants trade mark ""Forever"" forming part of the impugned trade mark ""Chandrika Forever"" had no reputation;
(h) that the mark ""Forever"" is devoid of any distinctive character and is not capable of distinguishing the goods;
(i) that the granted registration would cause confusion among the public and deceive the public;
(j) that the use of the part of the impugned trade mark would constitute an infringement and an act of passing off goods; and
(k) that the impugned trade mark is wrongly remaining on the register without sufficient cause.
The applicants, that is, the respondent herein filed their counter statement re-stating the facts as stated in ORA/97 to 100/2010/TM/CH and denied
the grounds.
We have heard Shri P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel, Ms. Gladys Daniel, Counsel for the applicant and Shri Satish Parasaran, Shri Madan Babu,
Counsel for the respondent on 17.4.2012. Both the Counsel advanced common arguments in all the five matters as the subject matter is one and the
same. In view of this reason, M.P. No. 223/2011 is allowed.
The applicant in ORA/97 to 100/2010/TM/CH will be referred to as theapplicant in all the matters and the respondent will be referred to as the
respondent in all the matters.
The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are aggrieved by the registration of the respondents registered trade
mark as a Civil Suit has been filed by the respondents against the applicants based on the registration. The 1st user claimed by the respondent is
01.10.1997 in their application under No. 770706 and 777196 which have been withdrawn.
The impugned trade mark is descriptive. Section 9(1) (b) of the Act deals with absolute grounds for refusal of registration. A mark which indicates
the quality or intended purpose of the goods shall not be registered. The word ""Fairever"" cannot be monopolized to claim exclusive right for a fairness
cream. The respondent's reasons cannot be accepted.
The combination of words if conveys a meaning then it is not an invented word - the Counsel relied on AIR 1978 Mad 336 - Nestle""s Products
(India) Ltd., Appellant Vs. P. Thankaraja and another, Respondents. The next ground was that when three marks are associated, if the main mark is
withdrawn then the associated marks do not survive. The Counsel relied on Section 2(1)(c) of the Act - definition of associated mark.
The respondents have given different dates of user in the four applications. 1985 PTC 222 - M/s.K.B. Hira Lal & Sons, Delhi, Plaintiff Vs.
M/s.Kumar Industries, Delhi and Another was relied on and the Counsel submitted that the respondent had given different dates and has not
approached the Registrar with clean hands and therefore cannot get the relief as prayed for.
The Counsel then submitted that they adopted the trade mark ""Chandrika"" in the year 1939 through Shri Kesavan Vaidyar founder of the
Company. In the year 2004 it was assigned to Wipro. The impugned application was made on 26.10.2007 in Classes 3 and 5. The mark ""Forever"" is
not descriptive. It is used in sanitary goods. The provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the Act are therefore not attracted. There can be no comparison of
the applicant's label mark and the word mark of the respondent. The Counsel then relied on: AIR 1965CAL 417 - The Singer Manufacturing Co. Vs.
The Registrar of Trade Marks and another.
The Counsel then relied on Section 12 of the Act and AIR 1988 Cal 327 - Charubala Saha and Others, Appellants Vs. Eastern Railway
Administration and another, Respondents. The Counsel submitted that their products are available in Andhra Pradesh only.
The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent carried on business under the name ""Beauty Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd."" since
1990 and in the year 1996, the name was changed to Vale Exports. In the year 2001 Vale Exports assigned the trade mark ""Fairever"" under No.
699156 to the respondent herein.
The trade mark ""Fairever"" was adopted on 1.10.1997. The respondent herein has been using the trade mark since then. They had applied for
registration of the trade mark ""Fairever"" in Class 30 in respect of Saffron which was proposed to be used on the date of application, i.e., on 27.05.1998
under No. 803816 and the same was registered.
The Counsel further submitted that the trade marks were applied claiming user since 1998. They had been using the mark for their products since
1998 without any interruption. The applicants have applied for registration of the trade mark ""Fairever"" on 26.10.2007 proposing to use the same. The
Counsel submitted that from the press statement made by Mr. Vineet Agarwal to ""Financial Chronicle"" in August 2009 it is seen that the applicants
are expanding their brand next month where the impugned trade mark was being launched.
Chandrika, the ayurvedic soap brand owned by Wipro Consumer Care (WCCL), the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) and lighting arm of IT
major WIPRO, is set to move beyond soaps. WCCL is looking at extending the brand to other product categories such as face wash, talcum powder
and face cream, among others. The brand extension is expected next month....
....WCCL is also launching variants of Chandrika soap. The company is test marketing soap with a different formulation under Chandrika Forever
brand in Andhra Pradesh.
Though the applicants claim user since 2007, the goods bearing the trade mark ""Forever"" was put to use only in 2009. The respondent then relied
on the judgment reported in -
(i) 2011 (4) SCC 85 - T.V. Venugopal, Appellant Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Limited and Another, Respondents and submitted that in that case
Eenadu"" was a descriptive word yet it had acquired a secondary or subsidiary meaning, by which the products were identified with the company.
(ii): 2010 (6) CTC 813 - Consim Info Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Janakiraman Murugavel, Appellant Vs.
Google India Pvt. Ltd., Respondents was relied on to state that whether the registered trade mark has acquired a secondary meaning or not has to be
tested only on the strength of the evidence let in. But irrespective of whether they have acquired secondary meaning or not even if they have a space
in between the words would certainly provide a likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the rival marks here are likely to cause confusion.
(iii) 1988 RPC (23) 530 - POUND PUPPIES Trade Mark - The mark has acquired distinctiveness if the mark has on the date of the hearing been
extensively used; then the mark is distinguished of the goods from that of others.
The Counsel then submitted that the applicant had filed an affidavit in support of the application No. 1615601 before the Registrar of Trade Marks
in which it was stated that the trade mark ""Chandrika"" was used since 1939 and the mark ""Forever"" along with the mark ""Chandrika"" was intended to
be used as of 2008. The mark therefore was not used till 2008 and cannot be said to have acquired distinctiveness.
3 4 . The respondents are prior users of the trade mark since 1998 whereas the applicants are using since 2008 or later. The Counsel then relied on
Section 16 of the Act. The Counsel then contended that the judgments in 'INSTEA','JULIE' and 'DIMMERSTAT' (cited supra) were not applicable
to the case on hand.
In ""Perfection"" case it is laudatory epithet and not applicable. The other cases were also not applicable. The Counsel then relied on Red Label
case -
TA/47/2003/TM/CH, OA/34/2004/TM/CH, OA/69/2004/TM/CH AN TA/305/2004/TM/KOL - M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Appellant Vs. M/s.
Girnar Exports & Another to state that the applicants had used the words ""Chandrika"" and ""Forever"" in the initial stage in a same font and later had
gradually made small the word ""Chandrika"" and the word ""Forever"" was only seen prominently.
36 . MANU/MH/0256/2003 - Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd., Appellants Vs.Hindustan Lever Limited, Respondent. The trade mark ""AYUSH"" was
already on theregister and to adopt ""AYUSHAKTI"" was not honest. So also the applicants herewere aware of the respondent's trade mark ""Fairever
and therefore to adopt ""Forever"" was not correct and it was only to trade upon the reputation of the respondents.
MANU/IC/0038/2004 - Balaji Consumer Products of India and Anr.Appellants Vs. Chinnnaswami and Another - The rectification applications
have been filed only as a counter blast to the suit filed.
3 8 . AIR 1974 Madras 7 - K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty, Appellant Vs. K.Venkatesa Mudaliar and another, Respondents - The addition of the word
Radha"" to the legend ""Sri Andal"" will not make the slightest difference.
The Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in rejoinder submitted that Instea case is closely applicable to the case on hand. Eenadu case is not
applicable. The trade mark ""Fairever"" is not a word mark because it is descriptive.
We have heard the arguments of both the Counsel and have considered the same and have perused all the pleadings and documents. We shall first
deal with the four cases namely, ORA/97 to 100/2010/TM/CH.
We shall first decide the issue of ""aggrieved person"". As per Section 21 of the Act, any person may file an application to the registration of the
trade mark. A ""person aggrieved"" may also file an application for rectification. The locus standi is to be decided based on the principle of public
interest as it is to purify the register.
Persons who are in some way or other substantially interested in having the mark removed from the register or persons who would be substantially
damaged if the mark remained on the register are aggrieved persons. Lord Herschell in Powell's TM case (1894) 11 RPC 4 held -
where it can be shown that the applicant is in the same trade as the person whose trade mark is registered and wherever it can be shown that if the
trade mark if remained in the Register would or might limit the legal rights of the applicants, then the applicant is said to be a ""person aggrieved"". The
applicant herein is not able to carry on the business using the trade mark and therefore is a ""person aggrieved"".
An aggrieved person must establish that he may be damaged or injured if the mark remained on the register in some way or the other. Merely
because a person is engaged in the same trade will not be sufficient to make him a ""person aggrieved"".
The defendant in a suit for infringement and passing off is a ""person aggrieved"". In the case on hand, the applicant herein is the defendant in the
Civil Suit No. 221 of 2010 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The suit was filed based on the impugned registration. The applicant is
therefore a ""person aggrieved"". The applicant has the locus standi to file the rectification application.
We shall now deal with each matter separately.
ORA/97/2010/TM/CH:
The trade mark ""Fairever"" a label mark under No. 1014841 was filed on 6.6.2001 as ""proposed to be used"". The mark is associated with other
Nos.770706, 777196 and 810756. It was in respect of ""fairness cream, facial bleach, moisturizers, skin lotion, cold cream, vanishing cream, facial
cream, cosmetics and toiletries preparations all goods covered in Class 3"". There was also a disclaimer over the ""device of ladies face and device of
flower and all other descriptive matters"".
The mark was ""proposed to be used"" on 6.6.2001. The respondents have filed few invoices and advertisements to prove their use. The first invoice
is dated 24. 1.2001 and the second invoice is dated 7.4.2001 which cannot be considered their use even assuming the mark was put to use on the date
of application.
48 . The judgment reported in Pound Puppies case (cited supra) is that the mark acquired distinctiveness by extensive use on the date of hearing. In
the case on hand, the respondents have not filed sufficient evidence to support their case. The mark can be allowed to be registered even if it is
descriptive provided it has acquired distinctiveness by extensive and continuous use. The impugned trade mark cannot be said to have acquired
distinctiveness as there is no cogent evidence to prove their use.
For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the impugned trade mark deserves to be removed from the Register.
ORA/98/2010/TM/CH:
50 . The trade mark ""Fairever"" under No. 810756 was applied for registration on 17.7.1998 claiming user since 1.1.1997. It was in respect of skin
lotions, cream, ante-perspirants, hair care preparation, facial blood and cleansing milk.
5 1 . We have seen the documents filed by both. The parties have filed identical documents in all the five matters.
The respondents have relied on the documents filed in ORA/97/2010/TM/CH. The impugned trade mark has been filed on 17.07.1998 claiming
user since 1.1.1997. As stated earlier the 1st invoice is dated 24.1.2001. The other advertisements do not have the date mentioned. If at all the
respondents had been using the trade mark ""Fairever"" it is only since 2001 and not earlier. The respondent's contention in all the five cases is that they
had been using the trade mark ""Fairever"" since 1998. If that is their case, then how is it they claim user since 1997 in their application for registration
which we are unable to accept. Even assuming the word ""Fairever"" was adopted in the year 1997, the use since 1997 has not been proved and
therefore the trade mark is wrongly remaining on the Register which deserves to be removed.
ORA/99/2010/TM/CH:
The trade mark ""Fairever"" a label mark was applied for registration under No. 1249412 on 13.11.2003 claiming user since 1.2.1998. The mark was
used in respect of fairness cream and cosmetics included in Class 3. Disclaimer conditions as to the exclusive use of the non-distinctive matter. The
mark was associated with 1014841 (subject matter of ORA/97/2010/TM/CH).
As observed in the earlier matter - ORA/98/2010/TM/CH there is noevidence placed to prove user since 1998. The impugned trade mark is
therefore wrongly remaining on the register and deserves to be removed.
ORA/100/2010/TM/CH:
The trade mark again in this case is a label mark. The application for registration was made on 17.12.2003 under No. 1255978 in Class 3. The user
claimed is since
2.1998. The mark is associated with 1249412 and 124913 (1249412 is the subject matter of ORA/99/2010/TM/CH).
5 6 . On the same lines of observation made in ORA/98/2010/TM/CH and ORA/99/2010/TM/CH this trade mark also deserves to be removed.
The trade mark is ""Chandrika Forever"" a word mark under No. 1615601 in Class 3 and 5. The application for registration was filed on 26.10.2007
as ""proposed to be used"". On perusal of the additional representation it is seen that the applicant has claimed user since 1939 for the word ""Chandrika
and ""proposed to be used"" for the word ""Forever"". The goods were all kinds of soaps including toilet soaps, liquid soaps, cosmetics and toiletry
preparations in Class 3 and medicated toiletry preparations and medicated toiletry products like soaps, shampoos, handwash, sanitizers etc. in Class 5.
The applicants in this case are the respondent in ORA/97 to 100/2010/TM/CH. We shall therefore refer to as the respondent in this case. The
issue as to locus standi shall be first decided. The respondent filed a Civil Suit against the applicants (the respondent herein). The applicant had relied
on the impugned trade mark registration for defence. The respondent is therefore a person aggrieved. The respondent herein is a ""person aggrieved
and has the locus standi to file and maintain an application for registration.
The user as regards this mark, that is, ""Chandrika Forever"" is proposed to be used as on the date of application, that is, as on 26.10.2007.
The respondents submission was that the applicants in their affidavit in support of application No. 1615601 filed in the year 2008 before the
Registrar have stated that they had been using the trade mark ""Chandrika"" since 1939 and intend to use the trade mark ""Chandrika Forever"" now. If
that is so till May/July 2008 (it is not clear as it is May 2008 in the stamp and it is July 2008 in the affidavit) the applicant had not used the trade mark.
In that case, the invoices dated 29.12.2007 are created for the purpose of this case. We find force in the arguments of the respondents.
6 1 . The mark as applied for is the whole mark ""Chandrika Forever"". The advertisements as seen is that the word ""Chandrika"" is not as prominent as
the word ""Forever"".
There is no cogent evidence produced by the applicant to prove their use. Even assuming the date of user to be since 2009, the mark cannot be
said to have acquired distinctiveness within such short period.
We have seen the other application for registration of the mark ""Forever"" where the user is claimed since 1939. Even though we are not
concerned with that application we are only stating this for the reason that in the E-Register it is stated that the impugned trade mark is used since
1.1.1939.
We are of the view that for the reason of misstatement the wrongly remaining mark deserves to be removed. For the above stated reasons,
ORA/97 to 100/2010/TM/CH and ORA/246/2010/TM/CH are allowed with no order as to costs.