Partly allowed

Liberty Group Marketing Division v. Registrar of Trade Marks

Delhi HC1 May 2024C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)/27/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court in an appeal against the refusal of a trademark application under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, set aside the impugned order. The application was restored pending proof that the cited mark was rectified or the objection no longer sustained. The court did not express an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13th June, 2023 setting aside the refusal was set aside. The trademark application was restored to its original number and listed for hearing upon furnishing proof regarding the cited mark

Liberty Group Marketing Division Vs Registrar of Trade… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 27/2024 & I.As. 9639-9640/2024

¶4

LIBERTY GROUP MARKETING DIVISION ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Mr. Surya Rajappan, Ms. Tejasvini Puri and Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS ..... Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Mr. Lakshay Gunawat and Mr. Krishnan V., Advocates.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 01.05.2024

¶11

The present appeal impugns order dated 13^th June, 2023¹ , whereby the

¶12

Appellant’s application for the trademark in Class 32 for “Beers; non-alcoholic beverages; mineral and aerated waters; fruit beverages and fruit juices; syrups and other non-alcoholic preparations for making beverages ”, has been refused on the ground of Section 11 of the

¶13

1 “Impugned Order”

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 11:18:28

¶16

Trade Marks Act, 1999² in light of the cited mark “ ”³ in the First Examination Report.

¶17

After some arguments, Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, counsel for the Appellant, states that he shall take appropriate steps to have the Impugned Mark rectified/ cancelled. However, he prays that the Petitioner’s application, which has been refused, be kept pending so that they do not lose out on the seniority claim from the date of the said application⁴ .

¶18

In light of the prayer made by Mr. Wadhwa, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s application is restored to its original number. The same shall be now taken up for hearing at request of the Petitioner on furnishing proof to the Senior Examiner of the Trademarks that the Cited Mark has been cancelled/ rectified, or the objection raised no longer sustains.

¶19

It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Petitioner’s application shall now be considered on its own merits, subject to Petitioner succeeding in taking appropriate steps to have the impugned cited mark referred above rectified.

¶20

The appeal along with pending applications are disposed of.

¶21

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶22

MAY 1, 2024 as

¶23

2 “the Act”

¶24

3 “Cited Mark”

¶25

4 Date of application: 5th June, 2020.

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 11:18:28

Liberty Group Marketing Division v. Registrar of Trade Marks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liberty Group Marketing Division v. Registrar of Trade Marks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kei Industries Limited Vs Mr. Bharat Singh & Anr.

Janssen Sciences Ireland Uc Vs Controller of Patents

Rre Foods and Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alka Food Private Limited

Liberty Group Marketing Division Vs Registrar of Trade Marks

Intense Technologies Ltd. Vs Pabbathireddy Ramakrishna Reddy

Austin Nichols and Co. Inc. Vs M/S Jagatjit Industries Ltd. and Ors.