Disposed

Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib v. the Secretary to Government

Kerala HC28 Jan 2016WP(C)/1440/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Trademark Rectification application. The Court held that since the matter was pending, the Tribunal should issue fresh notices and conclude further proceedings after fixing a consolidated hearing.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal to issue fresh notices and fix a consolidated hearing for both parties.

Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib Vs the Secretary to Government — Intellectual Property | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/8TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1440 of 2010 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

------------------

¶8

DR.SHAJAHAN YOOSAF SAHIB, PROPRIETOR, M/S.AL-SHIFA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL FOR PILES RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 682 035.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

----------------------

¶12

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI.

¶13

2. THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS, BHOUDHIK SAMPADA, BHAVAN NEAR ANTOP HILL HEAD POST OFFICE, S.M.ROAD, ANTOP HILL MUMBAI 400037.

¶14

3. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, BUILDING, G.S.T.ROAD GUINDY, CHENNAI - 600032.

¶15

4. AL - SHIFA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD, OOTTY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST PIN - 697222 REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.UNNEEN.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 1440 of 2010 (D)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶22

P1: COPY OF TRADE MARK CERTIFICATE DT 16/9/2005.

¶23

P2: COPY OF AUTHORISATION FILED BY COUNSEL FORE THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P3: COPY OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION NO. 247710/06.

¶25

P4: COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P5: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 22/12/2008.

¶27

P6: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P7: COPY OF AUTHORISATION FILED BY COUNSEL FORE THE PETITIONER.

¶29

P8: COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶30

P9: COPY OF APPLICATION DT 2/6/2009 FOR JOINT TRIAL.

¶31

P10: COPY OF NOTICE DT 16/12/2009.

¶32

P11: COPY OF RELEVANT RULE 21 OF TRADE MARKS RULES 2002.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C).No.1440/2010

¶40

¶41

Dated this the 28^th Day of January, 2016

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

The petitioner seeks the following reliefs before this Court:

¶44

“i. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and P10 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

¶45

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to afford a fair chance of hearing to the petitioner with due notice to his counsel for conducting and defending the case on his behalf.

¶46

iii. To issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to consider Exhibit P9 application for consolidation/joint trial, and pass orders thereon.

¶47

iv. To issue a writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to cause an inspection/enquiry into affairs of the working of the 3rd respondent.

¶48

And

¶49

(i) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶50

W.P.(C).No.1440/2010

¶51

-:2:-

¶52

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 on

¶53

20/08/2010, in para.12 it is stated as follows:

¶54

“Without prejudice to the above, if the Hon'ble High Court directs a fresh hearing notice will be issued to both the parties and a consolidated hearing in respect of Rectification No.247710 and Opposition No.194847 will be fixed under intimation to both the parties.”

¶55

If the matter is pending, this Court is of the view that

¶56

further proceedings shall be concluded after issuing fresh notice to

¶57

the petitioner as well as the party respondent.

¶58

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶61

Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib v. the Secretary to Government

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

M.J.Devassy Vs State

Krishna Gadha S Vs the State of Kerala

Srelakshmi .C.S(Minor) Vs State of Kerala

Kripa Vs District Collector

Rafeeque Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Antony Vs the Executive Engineer,Poverty Alleviati