AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 S. Usha, J
The brief facts of the case are:-
The appellant herein applied for registration of the trade mark 'CEPHBID' (word per se) in class 5 in respect of medicinal, pharmaceuticals and
ayurvedic preparations, veterinary preparations and sanitary substances under No. 540552 on 23.11.1990 as proposed to be used. The said application
was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1090 dated 1.11.1994 at page 1072. The trade mark was registered on 15.11.1996. The mark was
renewed on 23.8.1998 and 23.11.2004. The mark is therefore valid upto 23.11.2014. On 31.8.2007, the Registrar of Trade Marks issued a show cause
notice under section 57(4) of the Act calling upon the appellant to state why the aforesaid registration should not be cancelled as the registration
granted is in contravention of section 23(1)(a) & (b) of the Act and the mark was wrongly remaining on the Register. A hearing in respect of the
notice was fixed on 26.9.2007. After hearing the Deputy Registrar held that the opponent had filed the notice of opposition in time and the opposition
proceedings are pending. Since the opposition proceedings are pending, the entry has wrongly made and wrongly remaining on the register without
sufficient cause in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the registration was cancelled.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the instant appeal on various grounds. The appellants main grievance is that the mark was
registered as early as 1996 and had been renewed in the year 1998 and 2004. The mark has been renewed upto 2014. The notice under section 57(4)
of the Act is not lawful.
We have heard and considered the appellants arguments as well gone through the documents.
The application for registration has been made in the year 1990 and the same had been advertised in the year 1994. The trade mark has been
entered in the Register and the Certificate of Registration has been issued on 15.11.1996. The trade mark has been renewed on 23.3.1998 and
23.11.2004. The notice has been issued on 31. 8.2007 after the second renewal. Going by the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the trade mark is
registered when the application for registration has not been opposed and the time for opposition has expired or when the trade mark is opposed and
an order in favour of the applicant is passed in the opposition proceedings.
4 . In the case, where an application is not opposed and the time has expired to oppose, the Registrar shall pass an order giving reasons for allowing
the trade mark to be registered. The mark, on expiry of the prescribed time shall not be registered or the mark shall not be entered in the Register.
5 . In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the trade mark has proceeded to registration in a mechanical manner. The trade mark has been
registered not only in the initial stage of granting registration but also subsequently. There has been two renewals where it was not seen that an
opposition is pending. The mark has been in the Register for more than two decades. The proposed opponent is not remediless. If the proposed
opponent is really aggrieved can initiate steps to get his legal remedy by initiating cancellation proceedings. In our view, Trade Marks Law does not
envisage re-opening of twice renewed registered trade mark sixteen years after registration on the basis of pending opposition. The scheme of the Act
generally envisages registration or refusal of a trade mark within a definite time frame. The question of bonafides of the opponent does not generally
arise, even though the opposition may be based on business rivalry or for other extraneous reasons. It was not correct for the registry to involve itself
in trade mark dispute sixteen years later. Otherwise it will result in lack of confidence in the market place of the trade mark system being administered
in the country. We, therefore, find no reason for the trade mark to be removed as the mark has been in the Register at least for sixteen years as on
date. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the trade mark registered shall remain on the Register. No order as to
costs.