In the case of Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Petitioner)
v Sunil Grover and Ors (Respondents), Sunil Grover
(Respondent No.1) sought for registration of the trademark
"SHARP" in respect to "Television Boosters, two in
one, television antenna and converters". Two parties, one
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha ("SKK") and secondly M/s
Associated Electronics and Electricals Industries (Bangalore) Pvt.
Limited (AEEIPL), opposed this. The registration was refused by the
Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi (Respondent No.2).
Respondent No.1 filed an appeal against the said refusal which was
pending before the court. As regards opposition filed by AEEIPL,
the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks held that the application filed
by Respondent No. 1 was to be abandoned for the want of prosecution
in terms of Rule 56(3). The said order according to the Petitioner
SKK became final, as respondent No.1 filed no appeal against
Later, after the hearing of the Respondent's appeal, the
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in an order dated 16
August 2007, observed and held, that the order which had been
passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks holding the trade
mark registration application of Respondent No.1, as having been
abandoned, was not directly connected with the issue involved in
the appeal, and that the IPAB had no jurisdiction to pass any order
in relation to the said order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade
Marks. This order of the IPAB was impugned in the present
Thereafter, the IPAB by a second impugned order dated 12
December, 2001, declined to entertain SKK's prayer that the
IPAB should dispose of the appeal with regard to the abandonment of
the application, but clarified that it would be open to SKK to
raise all such contentions in the main hearing.
The Court, therefore with regard to the submissions made by the
Petitioner for disposing the impugned order observed:
That the view taken by the IPAB in the second impugned order
could not be faulted, for Respondent No.1 had the right to appeal
against the order refusing the registration, which was pending
before the IPAB.
That the effect of an abandonment order on the pending appeal
would have to be considered by the IPAB on merits.
Further it was not necessary for the court to pronounce on the
effect of such abandonment.
It was thus held by the Court that, neither the impugned order
dated 16 August, 2007, nor the order dated 12 December, 2007, of
the IPAB called for any interference. The Court thus requested that
the IPAB had to endeavor to dispose of the appeal within a period
of six months. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).