SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, May 31, 2013

Haldiram Bhujiawala: IPAB Order

Posted on 5:36 AM by Unknown
Image from here
The IPAB on April 26, 2013 ordered for the removal of trademark registration made in favour of Kolkata based – Haldiram Bhujiawala. This order ended a long standing family dispute over the use of the trademark Haldiram Bhujiawala. (for IPAB order see here). 



Factual Matrix 

The trademark ‘Haldiram Bhujiawala’ was coined in the year 1941 by Mr. Ganga Bishan (whose nickname was Haldiram), for his business - the manufacture and sale of sweets, papads etc. Initially, the firm was a sole proprietorship. But in the year 1956, Mr. Bishan made his sons Mr. Rameshwar Lal (whose heirs are the respondents), Mr. Moolchand and Mr. Das partners in the firm trading as Haldiram Bhujiawala. In 1958, Mr. Rameshwar Lal retired from the firm and shifted to Kolkata. His father, out of love and affection, permitted him to use the trademark ‘Haldiram Bhujiawala’ only in Kolkata. In 1969, Mrs. Kamala Devi, wife of Mr. Rameshwar Lal, joined the partnership firm Haldiram Bhujiawala. 

In 1965, a trademark ‘Haldiram Bhujiawala HRB (logo)’ as represented in a ‘V’ shape was conceived by Mr. Ganga Bishan. In 1972, an application for registration of the said trademark was filed by the said firm under No.285062 for the whole of India. Use was claimed since 1965. The said mark was opposed by a third party and subsequently the application proceeded to registration with a territorial restriction to read as ‘for sale in India except for the State of West Bengal’. Therefore, the said mark was in the name of the four partners i.e.., Mr. Ganga Bishan, Mr. Moolchand, Mrs. Kamala Devi and Mr.Shiv Kishan. 

In 1974, the firm Haldiram Bhujiawala dissolved. On dissolution, Mr. Moolchand acquired the exclusive right to use the trademark ‘Haldiram Bhujiawala’ for the entire country except Kolkata. Mrs. Kamala Devi was given permission to carry on business at Kolkata alone. Thereafter, Mr. Bishan and Mr. Moolchand died and in 1985 Haldiram Bhujiawala was converted to a private limited company. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Rameshwar Lal was carrying on business under the trademark Haldiram Bhujiawala at Kolkata. In 1977, Mr. Rameshwar Lal and Mr.Prabhu Shankar Aggarwal (son of Mr. Lal) filed an application (this is being challenged) for registration of ‘Haldiram Bhujiawala’ claiming use since 1958. This impugned trademark No.330375 is identical to the applicants trademark No.285062. The mark was registered in 1980. 

Issues 

The applicants (legal heirs of Mr. Moolchand) primarily contended that the registration of trademark No. 330375 was wrongly made as it has been made by fraud, on a claim of false proprietorship and on a false claim of use since 1958. It was contented that Mr. Rameshwar Lal had been a partner in the firm Haldiram Bhujiawala and hence was aware of the existence of the trademark ‘Haldiram Bhujiawala’ but had still gone ahead to obtain registration for an identical mark which is nothing but non-disclosure of material facts. Moreover, the advocate who was also aware of the entire facts – adoption of the mark of the applicants since 1941 and the V shaped logo since 1965, had suppressed and concealed these material facts before the Registrar. 

The respondents, however, refuted these allegations. According to the respondents, Mr. Rameshwar Lal had adopted the trademark Haldiram Bhujiawala with the V-shape logo in the year 1958 and had been using the same in the course of trade. They also contended that due to extensive, continuous and uninterrupted use all over India, the said trademark had become very popular. In order to obtain statutory rights over this mark, Mr. Rameshwar and his son Mr. Prabhu applied for the registration of the trademark under No.330375 in Class 30 claiming use since 1958. 

IPAB 

The IPAB dismissed the contentions of the respondents. 

The Board held that Mr. Rameshwar was only a permitted user and could not be the proprietor of the said mark. This was because Mr. Bishan who was the proprietor of the mark had, out of love and affection, only permitted Mr. Rameshwar to continue using the mark in Kolkata. Therefore, Mr. Rameshwar being a permissive user could not claim to be the proprietor of the mark. It was also noted that Mr. Rameshwar had knowledge of the fact that it was Mr. Bishan who had first coined the name ‘Haldiram Bhujiawala’. Therefore, Mr.Rameshwar Lal who had admitted that Haldiram is the nickname of Mr. Ganga Bishan and that Mr. Ganga Bishan is the one who adopted and came up with the trademark cannot claim to be the inventor and adopter himself. Thus, he cannot claim to be the proprietor of the trademark. 

On the point of date of use, the IPAB held that the date of user (1958) claimed by the respondents was not substantiated by cogent evidence. Also, the Board observed that the date mentioned was based on a false statement as the respondents were aware that Mr. Bishan’s mark, which was identical, claimed use since 1965. 

Moreover, the trademark was found to be neither distinctive, nor capable of being distinguished as on the date of registration and therefore, the registration was held to be in violation of the Trademark Act. 

On the point of registration of the impugned mark, the IPAB observed that the Registrar had raised an objection to the registration of the said trademark on the ground that an earlier application under No.285062 i.e., a conflicting mark was already pending. However, the respondents deceived the Registrar by suppressing information and falsely stating that they were the only firm that was run under the name Haldiram Bhujiawala and no other similar application was pending. The application was therefore accepted on false representation and concealment of facts. The IPAB remarked – “We would also like to observe that the Registrar is duty bound to look into the Register before granting a registration. In fact, if the Registrar had verified and looked into the earlier application, this mistake would not have occurred. The marks under Nos.285062 and 330375 are identical for identical goods” 

On the basis on this reasoning, the IPAB held that the registration of the respondent’s mark was invalid.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Trademark | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Ghost Post: Samsung v. Apple Presidential Enforcement Veto
    SpicyIP subscribers recently received a short blurb from Shamnad on this FT article regarding the hypocrisy of stamping 'national inter...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: GI for Pedana Kalamkari Art Form
    Image from here Recently, as The Hindu reports , Pedana Kalamkari art form received GI protection. Members of Vegetable Dye Hand Block Kalam...
  • Loss of an IP Leader: RIP Prof Daruwalla
    Most in the Indian IP firmament may have heard of the doleful demise of one of our IP leaders, Mr. Tehemtan Nasserwanji Daruwalla. He was an...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (41)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ▼  May (32)
      • Haldiram Bhujiawala: IPAB Order
      • Guest Post: Impugning novelty the Novartis way
      • Comparative Advertising: Reckitt Benckiser trumps ...
      • The (Great) Gatsby Files: IPAB decides in favour o...
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 4th Week)
      • Comparative Advertising: Delhi HC (Reckitt Benckis...
      • Drug price control order (DPCO) 2013 : What's in s...
      • Micolube: Dual Protection and the Doctrine of Elec...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: IPXI releases latest edition of i...
      • The Times Publishing House threatens to sue our bl...
      • Microsoft v. Motorola: A FRAND-ly formula for fixi...
      • Guest Post: A rejoinder from the IPKat
      • WIPS (Worldwide Intellectual Property Service) – I...
      • The curious case of medical method patent: Can doc...
      • Guest Post: A response to the IPKat's "despair" by...
      • Javed Akhtar nominated for CISAC Vice-Presidency
      • Guest Post: A quick update on Viacom v. YouTube
      • Guest post: Avoiding Open Source Surprises When Bu...
      • Guest Post: The IPKat's "despair" with the Supreme...
      • Comparative Advertising: Delhi HC (SAFFOLA v. FORT...
      • SpicyIP Events: Registrations for Consilience 2013...
      • IPAB upholds validity of Bajaj Auto's patent in re...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Update on Zanjeer and Bombay Talkies
      • The Ericsson-Micromax patent litigation: Where is ...
      • SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 2013, Week 1)
      • The Jaguar Trademark Conundrum
      • Social Innovations: A Braille Smartphone
      • USTR's Special 301 Process 2013 - India on Priorit...
      • The constitutional challenge by film producers to ...
      • FICCI announces online certificate course on compe...
      • Justice Sridevan’s status report to the Madras Hig...
      • Job openings at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (66)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (49)
  • ►  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.