Law: Trade Mark Act, 1940

Section: 6,8(a),10(1),5(1)

(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) [since repealed]--- ----Ss. 6, 8(a), 10(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963 [since repealed], R.11, Fourth Sched., Class 29---Trademark “Shezan”---No distinctiveness in the trade mark sought to be registered---Trademark identical to already registered trademarks---Likelihood of customers being deceived---Contravention of sections 8(a), 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940---Application for registration of trademarks dismissed. Admittedly, the respondent/applicant was not the proprietor of the word Shezan nor of Shezan. The respondent (or its purported predecessor, a partnership firm) had also not first registered the trade mark Shezan/Shezan. A private limited company “Shahnawaz Limited” was the inventor and proprietor of the word Shezan and label Shezan, and was also the first to have registered them, which was on 30 September 1958, that is, thirty years before the respondent submitted the Application with the Registrar to seek the registration of the trademark Shezan. The trade mark registrations of Shezan/Shezan (altogether seventy-five) were held by the appellant, including in class 29 since 30 September 1958. There was no distinctiveness in the trade mark, the registration whereof was sought by the respondent through the Application, therefore, it did not merit registration. Section 6 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 (Act) mandates the distinctiveness requisite for registration. However, the Application of the respondent sought registration of Shezan/Shezan which had no distinctiveness, and in fact was identical to subsisting registrations. Therefore, the Application of the respondent had to fail on this ground too. The respondent was also prohibited to obtain registration of the trade mark Shezan/Shezan because the trade mark it wanted to be registered was identical to already registered trade marks. To allow the respondent to register the same trade mark (Shezan/Shezan), and in the same class of goods in respect whereof the appellant held registrations, would definitely deceive the customers of the appellants goods, as they would assume they were buying the appellants goods, which would contravene section 8(a) of the Act. The…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492