LexLAL BABU PRIYADARSHI versus AMRITPAL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1009
LAL BABU PRIYADARSHI
A
v.
AMRITPAL SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006)
October27, 2015
B
[RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - s. 9(2) - Registration of trade
mark - Refusal of - Application for registration of word
'RAMAYAN' with the device of crown in respect of incense
C
sticks (agarbatties) and perfumeries etc. by appellant -
Opposition application by respondent, dismissed by the
Assistant Registrar of Trade Mark- However, appeal by the
respondent allowed by the appellate Board- On appeal, held:
There is no irregularity in the order passed by the Board - · D
No person can claim the name of a holy or religious book as
a trade mark for his goods or services marketed by him -
Appellant did not establish that the word "RAMAYAN" for
which he has applied the trade mark had acquired a
E
reputation of user in the market since many traders were using
the word "RAMAYAN" as a mark for the similar products -
Also, respondent was using the artistic mark earlier in point
of time to that of the appellant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1 There are many holy and religious books
like Quran, Bible, Guru Granth Sahib, Ramayan etc., to
name a few. No person can claim the name of a holy or
religious book as a trade mark for his goods or services
G
marketed by him. Moreover, the appellant has not been
able to establish that the word "RAMAYAN" for which he
has applied the trade mark had acquired a reputation of
user in the market inasmuch as, there are more than 20
traders in the city using the word "RAMAYAN" as a mark H
1009
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 12 S.C.R.
A for the similar products and also in different parts of the
country. [Para 18, 19) [1020-G-H; 1021-A-B]
1.2 On a perusal of the artistic work said to have been
created, there is no doubt that both the marks are
8
identical in design, colour, scheme and the reproduction
of photographs is in such a manner that_an ordinary
~ buyer would reasonably come to a mistaken conclusion
that the article covered by one brand can be the article
covered by the other. Both the parties have claimed to
c be manufacturing units engaged in certain goods.
Further, the respondent claimed that though he had been
in the business since 1980, he had developed and
published the artistic work in 1986 and has also been
using the mark as a trademark and claiming use since
D 1986 whereas the appellant claimed use of the trademark
since 1987. However, by filing an application, the
appellant has claimed the use since 1981. From the facts,
it is clear that the respondent was using the artistic mark
earlier in point of time to that of the appellant. There is
E no irregularity in the order passed by the Board while
setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar
of Trade Marks that the trade mark consists of device of
crown and the word "RAMAYAN" is capable of
F distinguishing the goods and is not included in the list
of marks not registrable under the Act, di9missed the
application filed by the respondent. [Para 2, 20, 21, 22)
[1012-E-F; 1021-C-E, F-H]
G
H
Registrar of Trade Marks vs. Ashok Chandra
RakhitAIR 1955 SC 558:1955 SCR 252; Mumbai
International Airport Private Limited vs. Golden
Chariot Airport and Another (2010) 10 SCC 422:
2010 (12 ) SCR 326 ; K.R. Chinna Krishna
Chettiar vs. Sri Ambal & Co. AIR 1970 SC 146:
1970 ( 1 ) SCR 290; Corn Products Refining
LAL BABU PRIYADARSHI v. AMRITPAL SINGH
Co. vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. 1960 (1)
SCR 968; National Bell Co. vs. Metal Goods Mfg.
Co. {P) Ltd. and Another 1970 (3) SCC 665: 1971
(1) SCR 70 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1955 SCR 252
referred to.
Para 6
2010 (12) SCR 326
referred to.
Para 7
1970 ( 1 ) SCR 290
referred to.
Para 7
1960 (1) SCR 968
referred to.
Para 8
1971 (1) SCR 70
referred to.
·Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2138of2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2005 of the
intellectual Property Appellate Board at Circuit Bench at
Kolkata in Original Appeal No. 35/2004!TM/KOL.
1011
A
B
c
D
Anuradha Salhotra, K. V. Mohan, Sumit Wadhwa, Advs.,
E
for the Appellant.
Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv., Sohan Singh, Bindra Rana,
Priya Adlakha, Mis. S. S. Rana & Co., Advs., for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1) The present aP.peal has been filed
against the order dated 10.01.2005 passed by thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.