JAININDER JAIN Vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second petitioner Janki Dass Jain is the father of the first petitioner Jaininder Jain and the third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The third respondent Arihant Jain is another son of the second petitioner. 5th respondent Smt. Raman Jain is the wife of the third respondent. 4th respondent Vishwa Jain is another son of the second petitioner and the 6th respondent Smt. Neelam Jain is the wife of the 4th respondent. It is common ground that the parties were carrying on business under various partnership deeds and we are concerned with the trade mark 'Kangaro'. On 25/9/1996 a notice was given by the Registrar to Mr. P.K. Talwar, Advocate according to the learned counsel for petitioners he was only counsel for Janki Dass Jain and Smt. Kiran Jain but he did not respond.

(2.) On 30/10/1996 order was passed by the Registrar ordering the TM-24 in favour of the respondents 3 to 6. The leaned counsel for the petitioners ambits that there was a family arrangement between the parties on 10/14.4.1995 and that document gives rights to the respective trade marks and trade names and that was not filed by the respondents 3 to 6 before the Registrar and there was suppression. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the family arrangement, whatever the nomenclature employed, that is subject-matter of decision by the Ludhiana Court.

(3.) It is stated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 that the complete set of documents forming part of this family arrangement was not filed and two important pages had been suppressed by the petitioners which respondents 3 to 6 had disclosed alongwith the written statement in this Court and respondents 3 to 6 have no objection to the proposed terms in those two sheets being considered and orders passed on the basis of those proposals.