You may also like...
-
-
-
As per Section 12, the Registrar is entitled to permit the registration by more than one proprietor of identical or similar trade marks in respect of similar goods or services in case of honest concurrent use or other special circumstances. In this case, the Registrar has permitted registration of the first respondent’s trade marks. Both the petitioner and the first respondent carry on transportation services as their primary business. Therefore, the mark is being applied to identical services. The documents on record disclose that the first respondent has used the mark from the year 1974. Section 12 does not require neck-to-neck concurrency and it is sufficient if the relevant trade marks have been used concurrently over a material length of time. Even otherwise, for reasons discussed, this case would fall within the scope of “other special circumstances” in Section 12. Given the fact that the first respondent’s marks are in use from about 1974, even if Section 33 did not apply, the first respondent would be entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled to rectification of the register in respect of the impugned marks. Therefore, (T)OP(TM)/176, 177 and 178/2023 are dismissed without any order as to costs. 12.12.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No rna SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J rna ( T) OP(TM)/176, 177 & 178/2023 (ORA/166,167& 168/2015/TM/CHN)
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 16, 2023