Disposed

M/S Golden Tobacco Limited and Anr. v. Itc Limited and Anr.

Delhi HC13 Sept 2019W.P.(C)/9490/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the IPAB's rejection of a belated application for additional evidence in trademark rectification proceedings. The High Court conditionally permitted production of original documents at final hearing pending costs payment and denied any further adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Conditionally permitted production of original documents on filing date subject to payment of Rs. 2,00,000; denied adjournment; liberty granted to challenge rejection in future appeal.

M/S Golden Tobacco Limited and Anr. Vs Itc Limited and… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13^th September, 2019

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9490/2019 and CM APPL. 39051/2019

¶4

M/S GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Raj Bahadur Srot and Mrs. Svyatha N. Shirolker, Advocates (M: 9212092763).

¶5

versus

¶6

ITC LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agarwal, Mr. Karan Luthra and Ms. Aarushi Tiku, Advocates for R-1 (M: 9818931119).

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶8

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶9

The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 1^st November, 2018 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter, “IPAB”) . The background is that Respondent No.1 herein had filed two rectification petitions seeking cancellation of the Petitioner’s Trade Mark Nos. 347870 and 1387061 in class 34. The case of the Respondent before the IPAB is that the Petitioner’s Trade Marks are wrongly registered and wrongly remain on the register as also on the grounds of non-use.

¶10

Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that during the pendency of the cancellation petitions, the Petitioner filed an application seeking to take on record additional documents in the form of a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, sales invoices and advertisements. The same was moved before

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

W.P.(C) 9490/2019

¶13

the IPAB but was rejected by the impugned order. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner further submits that if the said documents are not taken on record it would severely prejudice its case as it had filed the documents as per the advice of its counsel.

¶14

On behalf of the Respondents, it is submitted that the writ petition is writ large with incorrect and false statements. The dates which have been pleaded in the application do not match up and in fact, show the malafides in filing the application itself. It is the contention of the ld. Senior counsels that the intention is to delay the matter and to ensure that it is not finally heard before the IPAB.

¶15

Admittedly, the matter is listed for final hearing on 16^th September, 2019 before the IPAB on which date, as per the ld. counsels for the parties, the rectification petitions are slated to be finally heard. IPAB, has, in the impugned order noted various dates on which the matter has been adjourned since 2016. The Petitioner herein had filed the counter statement belatedly and the delay was condoned by the IPAB. Thereafter, the matter was argued in part, on 6^th August, 2018. Part arguments were thereafter heard again on 20^th September, 2019. It was under these circumstances that the IPAB felt that the Petitioner is unnecessarily delaying final hearing of the matter and rejected the application for additional evidence.

¶16

This court has perused the impugned order and there is no doubt that the Petitioner has not been diligent in following up the matter and filing its documents as per the timelines prescribed. The request for additional documents at a belated stage, after the matter was part heard before the IPAB, has been considered by the IPAB and rejected. There are contentions which have been raised by the Respondents on the merits of the documents

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) 9490/2019

¶19

i.e., that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate is not genuine, the invoices and advertisements are not in original and that they have not been counter signed by the Excise Officer.

¶20

Considering the fact that rectification petitions are decided on the basis of documentary evidence, the main issue is of the quality and period of user of the mark. The Petitioner ought to have placed the relevant documents at the time of filing the counter statement itself. The manner in which the documents are sought to be introduced at the stage of final hearing has led to the impugned order being passed rejecting the documents and the additional evidence. The matter is listed for final arguments on 16^th September, 2019. If the Petitioner is able to produce the original documents or authentic documents/certified copies, during the course of hearing, in a compilation, on 16^th September, 2019, it may do so, subject to payment of Rs. 2,00,000/as costs to the Respondents. If the original/certified copies are not produced on 16^th September, 2019, the final hearing before the IPAB will go on. No adjournment shall be sought by the Petitioner.

¶21

In case the Petitioner is unable to produce the documents and the matter is decided against the Petitioner, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to agitate the ground as to non-taking of additional documents, in any challenge to the final order of the IPAB, which it may avail, if the need so arises.

¶22

The present petition and all pending applications are disposed of.

¶23

Order dasti under signature of the Court Master.

¶24

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶25

SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 MR

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

W.P.(C) 9490/2019

M/S Golden Tobacco Limited and Anr. v. Itc Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Golden Tobacco Limited and Anr. v. Itc Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Mohan Singh Bhandari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Raman Kotnala Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jai Prakash & Ors. Vs Dg. of Works , Cpwd

Beehive Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

H C Nagwan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pahwa International Vs Commisioner of Value Added Tax & Anr.

M/S Kohli Traders Vs Sh. Shyam Singh

Stanley Fernandes Vs Commissioner of Customs ( Export)

M/S K K Enterprises & Anr. Vs Pawan Kumar Saraswat

Lokesh Kalra & Anr. Vs Pawan Kumar Saraswat & Ors.

M/S Bhavuk Enterprises & Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar Saraswat

Pawan Kumar Vs Satnam Singh

Pawan Kumar Vs Chameli & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Ram Lal