Newman vs Jacques Jaunet S.A. And Ors.

S. Jagadeesan, J

The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated 14.10.1993, rejecting the opposition No. DEL

4902 of the appellant herein and directing the registration of the trade mark claimed by the respondent. The respondent herein filed an application No.

409326 in Class 24 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 16.8.1983 for registration of their logo

mark consisting of the words ""Newman"" (written upside down in two lines). The said application was advertised before acceptance, in the Trade

Mark Journal No. 923 dated 16.11.1987 at page 618. The appellant filed their notice of opposition on 12.1.1988, raising their objection that the

impugned mark of the respondent is hit by the provisions of section 9 of the said Act. Further objection was also raised under Sections 11(a), 11(e)

and 18(1) of the said Act. The respondents herein filed their counter statement. The matter was heard fully and elaborately and ultimately by the

impugned order, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, disallowed the opposition of the appellant and further directed the registration of the logo

mark of the respondent.

Aggrieved by the said order the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, rejecting the opposition of the appellant, the appellant herein filed an appeal

before the High Court of Delhi in CM(M) No. 43/1994, which stood transferred to the Board by virtue of Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

and the same was renumbered as TA/209/2004/TM/DEL.

It is unnecessary for us to elaborate either the facts or the arguments of the counsel in this matter in view of our reasoning in T.A. No.

226/2004/TM/DEL, wherein this Board has held that the rights of the parties are governed by the compromise decree of the Delhi High Court in Suit

No. 2784/1987, and as such, it is not open to either of the parties to raise any objection against the other unless the logo mark or the trade mark sough

for registration by any one of the parties offends the terms of the compromise decree. This Board has further held that elaborate discussion with

regard to Sections 9, 11(a) and 12(1) are unnecessary. Following the same principal and for the reason stated in our order in T.A. No. 226/2004, we

dismiss this appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs.