Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2021) 01 IPAB CK 0016

Thinkworks Pvt Ltd vs Registrar Of Trade Marks

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · Decided on 21 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lakshmidevi Somanath, Technical Member · Makyam Vijay Kumar, Technical Member · Manmohan Singh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 68 Of 2020/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

26 paragraphs · 367 words

Sr.

No.",Mark,"Reg.

No.",Class,"Date   of

Application

1.,,2239880,"09, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 41",25/11/2011

2.,,2210095,"16, 25, 35, 41",23/09/2011

3.,,2210094,"16, 25, 35",23/09/2011

4.,,2210093,"16, 25, 35, 41",23/09/2011

i. Cited mark bearing No. 1474617 for the mark has expired and reflects the renewal details as valid up to 31/07/2016.,,,,

ii. Cited mark bearing No. 2005490 for the mark THINKBIG has expired and reflects the renewal details as valid up to 06/08/2020.,,,,

iii. Cited mark bearing No. 2104854 for the mark THINK AGAIN has ‘Abandoned’.,,,,

iv. Cited mark bearing No. 1974368 for the mark has been opposed by the Appellant.,,,,

v. The remaining cited marks have been co-existing on the Register.,,,,

19.

In view of the substantial use of Trademark made by the Appellant, the trademark has acquired a distinctive character and secondary",,,,

meaning, and is associated only with the goods and services of the Appellant. The mark was honestlyadopted and used by the Appellant. The",,,,

Appellant had also placed before us the supporting documents to corroborate this.,,,,

20.

The applied trademark has been genuinely, extensively and continuously used by the Appellant since 2011.The applied trademark is a distinctive",,,,

mark. In addition, owing to genuine, continuous, and extensive worldwide use and promotion of the applied trademark, it has acquired distinctiveness",,,,

and is associated in the minds of the consumers, the public in general and the members of the trade. Therefore, the impugned mark is not descriptive",,,,

of the services sought to be covered under it and has no reference to the kind, quality an intended purpose of the services, but is in fact inherently",,,,

distinctive and is eligible for registration.,,,,

21.

The Registrar’s order dated 31-Jan-2018 and the Statement of Grounds of Refusal dated 02- April-2019refusing the registration of Trade,,,,

Mark Application No.2218171 in Classes 16, 25, 35 and 41has failed to examine these aspects.",,,,

22.

Taking into consideration of the above, the Appeal is hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 31-Jan-2018 and the Statement of Grounds of",,,,

Refusal dated 02 April 2019 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks is set aside. The Trade Mark Application No.2218171 in Classes 16, 25, 35 and",,,,

41is allowed to proceed on to advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal. There is no order regarding costs.,,,,