AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Usha, J
The instant rectification application has been filed for rectification of the trade mark 'Financial Times' registered under No. 468937 in class 16 under
the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The first Respondent herein has been carrying on the business in respect of newspapers using the trade mark 'Financial Times' in India since 1948
in respect of printed matters, periodicals, publications and books since 1977. They had been supplying the newspapers to various institutions, individuals
etc. The Central Bank (of India) i.e. The Reserve Bank of India has been subscribing to its newspaper at least since 1960s and that they wish to rely
on the said fact in support of their case. The event documents evidencing the factum of subscription of the newspaper 'Financial Times' are to be
produced to decide the matter. The Appellate Board vested with the powers of the Civil court is empowered to requisition the records of The Reserve
Bank of India. It is, therefore, prayed that this Board may be pleased to requisition the records of the Reserve Bank of India pertaining to subscription
of the newspaper and other relevant documents.
The Respondent/ applicant herein filed their counter-statement to the miscellaneous petition. At the outset they stated that the miscellaneous petition
is misconceived, untenable and liable to be dismissed as has been filed without any basis. The summoning of the subscription records cannot be said to
be public records. This petition is an abuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed. The present petition has been filed to mislead this Board with
malafide intentions. The same is against the judicial economy and is wastage of valuable time of this Board. The miscellaneous petition therefore be
dismissed with costs.
We have heard Senior counsel Shri Ajoy Gupta assisted by learned Counsel Shri J.V. Abhay for the Respondent /applicant and learned Counsel
Shri Hemant Singh and Shri Sachin Gutpa for the Petitioner/Respondent in the Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi on 5.8.2010.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner /Respondent relied on Section 92 of the Act and submitted that this Appellate Board has the same powers of
a civil court for requisitioning of public record and so the prayer in the miscellaneous petition ought to be allowed. The counsel reiterated what was
stated in the miscellaneous petition.
The counsel for the Respondent /applicant contended that is for the party concerned to produce documents in proof of the case and it is not for the
court to summon documents. The documents now relied on the by the Petitioner/Respondent is not a public record. The counsel therefore submitted
that the miscellaneous petition ought to be dismissed.
We have carefully heard and considered the arguments of both the counsel.
The documents relied on by the Petitioner / Respondent is the invoices, bills etc., pertaining to the subscription of newspaper by the Reserve Bank
of India. In our considered opinion, the same cannot be said to be a public document or record, it is only a document interse the parties concerned. We
find force in the contention of the Respondent that it is for the party to prove his case by evidence and it is not for the court to summon the documents
for proof. Moreover, the order placed and other connected papers could be in the custody of the Petitioner/Respondent. In view of the above, we are
of the opinion that it is not for this Board to summon the records from the Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly the miscellaneous petition No. 82/07 is
dismissed with no order as to costs.