Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2010) 07 IPAB CK 0010

Montres Rolex S.A. vs Rolex Co. And Ors.

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · Decided on 16 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Usha, J · Syed Obaidur Rahaman, Technical Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M.P. No. 158/09 In TA/3/09/TM/KOL, TA/3/09/TM/KOL (A.T.M. No. 2/2000)

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

14 paragraphs · 252 words

S. Usha, J

1.

The appeal has been preferred against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks on 30.07.1999 dismissing the opposition No. CAL-2589

and allowing application No. 520984 in class 22 to proceed to registration under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 before

the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta under No. A.T.M. No. 2 of 2000. In pursuance of the provisions of Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the

same has been transferred to this Appellate Board and re-numbered as TA/3/2009/TM/KOL.

2.

The Appellants herein have taken out a miscellaneous petition No. 158/09 for amending the cause title of the Appellant to read as Rolex S.A.

instead of Montres Rolex SA.

3.

The matter was fixed for hearing the miscellaneous petition on 21.6.2010, the counsel for the Petitioner was present and none represented for the

first Respondent. The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the application for registration of the impugned registration of the trade mark has been

abandoned and produced a copy of the Trade Marks Journal No. 1358 Regular, December 16, 2006 where a list of abandoned cases were given and

where the impugned trade mark was also mentioned. He also produced the latest (15/6/2010) computer report status which also stated that the

application No. 520984 in class 22 was abandoned.

5.

In view of the above, nothing survives in the appeal and has become infructuous. The appeal is dismissed without costs. Consequently the

miscellaneous petition No. 158/09 is also dismissed.