AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl.No.,Trademark,Application No.,Class,Status
1.,,3582163,9,Registered
2.,,3582164,16,Registered
3.,,3582165,35,Registered
4.,"I GOT CROPS
(Word)",3582183,16,Registered
5.,"I GOT CROPS
(Word)",3582182,9,Registered
6.,"I GOT CROPS
(Word)",3582180,42,Registered
The Appellant has also relied on Delhi High Court Judgement i.e., Caterpiller Inc. Vs. Mehtab Ahmed and Ors, 99 (2002) DLT 678 which adopted",,,,
the Abercrombie & Fitch V. Hunting World Inc, decision where it was held that “Trademarks, which fall under the Category of “Invented",,,,
Words†are inherently distinctive and therefore have to be protected†and Globe Super Parts Vs. Blue Super Flame Industries, AIR 1986 Delhi 245",,,,
wherein the Delhi High Court held “In the case of a word which is coined, fancy, new or meaningless, the claim to exclusive appropriation is",,,,
sustainable without the need to prove existence of secondary significance.""",,,,
We have examined the Registrar’s impugned order dated 11/02/2019 and Statement of grounds dated 29/03/2019 and reviewed the,,,,
submissions of the Appellant. It is evident that the Respondent orders are non-speaking orders in that no reasons were given in impugned orders nor,,,,
the evidence produced was discussed. The examiner report has also not been discussed in the said orders. Mechanical orderswere passed. Being,,,,
having the original jurisdiction with Respondent. It was the duty of the officer to record facts and discusses the submissions of the party in writing,,,,
before refusing the application.,,,,
It is pertinent to note that the Appellant other label mark encompassing the same words is already Registered under Application No. 3582165 in,,,,
similar class for similar set of services. The mark “I GOT CROPS†for the services applied cannot be termed as descriptive; however even,,,,
assuming that the said mark is descriptive of the services; the user claimed by the Appellant makes the mark eligible for Registration as it acquired the,,,,
secondary Significance/ acquired distinctiveness as to its usage that is provided as per the provisio of Section 9(1) of the Trademark Act, 1999. The",,,,
Respondent would have taken the above into consideration before passing the impugned orders dated 11th February 2019 to which Statement of,,,,
Grounds provided on 29th March 2019.,,,,
In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The order dated 11th February 2019 to which Statement of Grounds provided on 29th March",,,,
2019are set-aside. The application No.3582184 in class 35of the appellant is be accepted and proceeded further as per rules.,,,,
No costs.,,,,