Dismissed

Jagdish Pershad Ladda, v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Guna Complex

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022WP/17310/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging a trademark registration by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The court held that the filing was untimely and refused to disturb findings made years prior, though no costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as frivolous; miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs.

Jagdish Pershad Ladda, Vs Intellectual Property… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

{Ii 1

¶2

I i

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 17310 OF 2006

¶9

Between:

¶10

Jagdish Pershad Ladda,, 2-6-27 , Market Road, Karimnagar-520 003.

¶11

.,.PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

lntellectual Property Appellate Board, Guna Complex, Anmnexe-1, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teyanpet, Chennai-600 018.

¶14

Asst.Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry,, Chennai and

¶15

K.Ganesh Nadar, Prop.Shanker Sai Consumer Products,, 3-38/3, Angalkuduru, fenali-S22 2'l 1, Guntur District.

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certioran or any other writ as the Hon'ble Court and set aside the impugned order passed by lntellectual Property Appellate Board in O.A. No.31/2005lTMlCHldl.2704-2006 and allow the writ petition with costs and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

¶18

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 27106 OF 2006)

¶19

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS. No.38/04,39/04 and 214103 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad pending dlsposal of the writ petition

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 21692 OF 2006)

¶21

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to give effect to the certificate of registration of the trademark if it is already issued to the third respondent and to call back the

¶22

¶23

{

¶24

certaficate pendinE disposal of the writ petition and l)ass sr-rc h other order or orders as this Hon rle Court may deem fit and proper in the irte^'est of lustice.

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 oF 2Q!! WPMP. NO: 21691 OF 2006)

¶26

Petition und )r Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci tumstances stated in the affidavit file( in support of the petition, the High Court rray be^pleased to suspend the op€ration of the order of the 1st resp,)ndent passed in O.A.no 31/2005/Tl\ /CH dated 27 -4-2006 pending disposal of ht: writ petition and pass such other or, ler or orders as this Hon'ble Court nray de:nr fit and proper in the interest of^justir e

¶27

l.A. NO: 9 OF 2006r WPMP. NO: 108797 OF 2006)

¶28

Petition undt r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circl,mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased

¶29

l.A. NO: 4 O F 2r)06( /VPMP. NO: 27107 OF 2006

¶30

Petition und( r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsiances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mr:y be pleased to fix an early date to rear and dispose off the writ petition No.173,'10/05 and pass

¶31

Counsel for the Pe itioners:SRl. K HEMA PRAKASH RAO

¶32

Counsel for the Re:ipondents: ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENE.R,AL^,CF INDIA

¶33

Counsel for the Rer;pondents: MADDELA RAVINOER

¶34

The Court made th{ following: ORDER

¶35

THE HON'BLE THE CHIE! IUSTICE UJJAI BHTIYAN

¶36

4ND

¶37

THE I{ON'BLE SRI IUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶38

WRIT PETITION No. 17310 of 2006

¶39

ORDEB.a,.,,. r it,r'b/t tit( t,at l,,L t. .?itttiqtda)

¶40

It is submitted that Mr. K. Hema Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would like to argue the case. However, today he is indisposed.

¶41

We have gone through the material appears and averments made in lhe writ affidavit. We are not inclined to accede to the request made on behalf of the F,etitioner.

¶42

V'le Iind that the writ petition has been filed against the order datecl 27.O4.2006 passed by the lst respondent i.e., Intellectual Property Appellate Board in O.A.No.31/2005/TM/CH conhrming the order of the 2nd respondent for registration of trademark under application No. 10399738 in class 3 of the 3''l respondent.

¶43

It is seen that petitioner had filed application on, 24.C7.2OO7 lor registration oI his trademark Super XTRA bearing No. 1030209 in class 3 in respect of detergent cake and powder claiming the period of user from 1985 under the Trade and Merr:handise Marks Act, 1958. 3rd respondenr had filed /pplication on^28.08.2O01 for^registration of the^same trade mark bearing No.1039973-Ll claiming the period of user lrom 28.03.1998.

¶44

It is a casr: ol lrade marks and 16 long years havr: ,:lal;sed srnce the institution of the wri petition.

¶45

At this distant point of time, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of

¶46

the 2nd respondent ar' affirmed by ths 1"t respondent way back on 22,o4.2006.

¶47

That being the position, the writ petition is dismissed as inliuctuous.

¶48

Miscellaneous rpplications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no ordr r as to costs.

¶49

SD/.N.RAJGOPAL ASSIS;T,ANI REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' ( nt St:CTI6( OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

lntellechral F roperty Appellate Board, Guna Complex,^An rnexer-1, 2nd^Floor, 443 Anna Si.lar, Teyanpet, Chennai-600 018.

¶52

Asst.Registrrr of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry,, Chennai and

¶53

K.Ganesh Nadar, Prop.Shanker Sai Consumer Products , :,-38/3, Angalkudun ,. Tenali-s22 21 1 , Guntur District.

¶54

4 One CC to SRI K HEMA PRAKASH RAO Advocate [OF'U3]

¶55

One CC to^riRl ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Advocate loPUcl

¶56

One CC to )Rl. MADDELA RAVINDER Advocate [OPU(]]

¶57

Two CD Cc pies

¶58

One Spare Copy

¶59

¶60

BS ?r

I i

HIGH COURI

DATED:1811( 12022

ORDER

lr I5 lNl ?[?]
<br>!.r., d-.*/'
'..': Dii6i, I't --:-::.--- _' :,

¶66

WP.No.1731 ) of 2006

¶67

OtS \1531116"

¶68

BISP€S+NG OF THE WRIT PETITION A:, rr,peurruoos

¶69

WIHTOUT'CCSTS

¶70

1a<(e Xfr"

Jagdish Pershad Ladda, v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Guna Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Pershad Ladda, v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Guna Complex

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

Veeramma, Vs The A.P. Pollution Control Board

The A.P State Road Transport Corporation (Now Tsrtc) Vs G.S.Gangadhar

The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Vs M/s. Fertilizers and Pesticides Seeds Dealers Association

C. Krishna Babu, S/o Late C. Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, repby

M/S. Classic Enterprises, Anup Ham Roy, Vs the Union of India, Govt of India, and Another

Federation for the Leprosy-Cured People, Regd.No.348 of Vs The Union of India represented by its Principal Secretary