Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2014) 11 IPAB CK 0003

Kusha Inc vs Sachdeva and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · Decided on 26 November 2014 · Citation: (2015) 1 RCR (Civil) 613

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.N. Basha, J · Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Technical Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
ORA/96/2007/TM/DEL

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 264 words
1.

This application is preferred by the applicant for rectification of the impugned trade mark "ROYAL WITH DEVICE OF QUEEN" under No. 1175315 in class 29. It is seen th in this matter the applicants by preferring this application also engaged the counsel by name Mr. S.K. Bansal but thereafter the applicants are not giving any instructions to the said counsel and as a result, the learned counsel Mr. S.K. Bansal has withdrawn his appearance. It is to be stated as per the earlier submission of Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, the learned counsel for the respondent that even counter was also filed and served to the learned counsel for the applicants and this factor could have been informed to the applicants by their counsel. The applicants not only demonstrated their conduct of not giving any instructions to their own counsel but also preferred to be absent before this Bench today during the hearing. However, with a view to afford further opportunity, this Bench in spite of such a strange conduct of the applicants, has directed the Registry to send notice of hearing and posted the matter today. The notice send through Speed Post to the applicants returned with the endorsement "Refused". In view of such a deliberate conduct of the applicants, we are constrained to dismiss the application on the ground of non-prosecution. Considering the conduct of the applicants by just filling the application and making the first respondent appear before this Bench for all the dates of hearing, we are also constrained to impose costs of ' 1,000/-. Accordingly, the ORA is dismissed.