Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the case of M/S KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL v. M/S JASWANT SINGH BALWANT SINGH here on 21.01.2019 allowed the petition stating that if the Bills are Suspicious, No Opposition in the matter of Trademark can be granted. 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner (M/s Khushi Ram Behari Lal) is a partnership firm carrying on the business of processing, marketing and exporting of rice since 1978 (the year of establishment). This firm has been continuously using the trademark TRAIN BRAND WITH DEVICE OF TRAIN since then up to the present time.

Later on the name of M/s. Khushi Ram Behari Lal Ltd. changed to be M/s. KRBL Ltd. by taking due steps and the partners of the firm remained as the directors. The petitioner in order to acquire statutory rights for the subject matter trademark filed an application for its registration which was opposed by the respondents on the grounds inter alia that the respondent is engaged in the business of Rice under the Trade Mark “TRAIN”.

The learned Registrar rejected the application of trademark filed by the petitioner and allowed the opposition of the respondent and refused the application for registration of the subject matter trademark. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Appellate Board by filing appeal but the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.5.2012.

Thus, this petition was filed before this court.

DECISION OF THE COURT

Hon’ble High court held that the respondent’s registration pertains to the word mark “TRAIN”, whereas the petitioner’s subject matter trademark is a label mark having several distinguishing features. Also, the petitioner subject matter trademark under registration has been in use for almost 22 years without any interruption and there has been no confusion and deception reported by the respondent.

Hon’ble court further held that Respondent’s bills are suspicious in nature as the logo of respondent was appearing for rice, but the goods were shown for husk and sugar. Court further observed that copyright registration is no proof of user.

Thus, the order of the IPAB was set aside and petitioners were allowed for the said trademark.

Read the full Judgement Here:

[embeddoc url=”http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SKT/judgement/24-01-2019/SKT21012019CW79832012.pdf” download=”all”]