CULCUTTA WIRE NETTING INDUSTRIES Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27.1.1998 M/s. Calcutta Wire Netting Industries through its sole proprietor Madan Lal Arora had filed a complaint under Sections 78 & 79 of the Trade & Merchandise Act 1958 as also under Section 63 & 64 of the Indian Copy Right Act 1957 and under Section 420 of the IPC. This complaint was filed against certain unknown persons. The allegations in the complaint were that the complainant firm had adopted the trade mark "TIGER BRAND" label with device of TIGER in respect of wires and wire netting in the year 1964 and had been continuously using the same since up to the date of the filing of the compliant. Business carried on by the complainant firm was extensive and goods bearing its trade mark were in high demand in the market on account of its quality and precision. Complainant firm vide application No. 537068 had applied for registration of this trade mark "TIGER BRAND" on 1.9.1997. Complainant firm is the owner of the artistic work in the aforementioned trade mark titled "TIGER BRAND" label with the device of TIGER as the same being original in character.

(2.) On 29.3.1998 a search and seizure order was passed by the concerned Court before whom the complaint had been filed. Pursuant to the search warrants articles bearing falsified mark "TIGER" were recovered from the possession of the accused Rameshwar Dayal Gupta from premises of M/s Gupta Industrial Corporation No. 2, Gali No. 9, Anand Prabhat, New Delhi. Recoveries were also effected from the possession of Satish Gupta on 30.3.1998 from premises No. 1101,1102, Rucka Hajrasmal Mohalla Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi. Further recoveries were also made from the possession of accused Bharat Bhushan Gupta from premises No. K-429/135, G.T. Karnal Road, Adarsh Nagar Extension. This recovery was effected on 3.9.1998.

(3.) On 3.12.1997 a notice of opposition had been filed by Rameshwar Dayal against the aforestated application of the complainant seeking registration of his trade mark. As per the complainant the communication of this notice of opposition had been made to the petitioner on 11.6.1999 only and this is evident from the endorsement on page No. 137 of the documents filed along with this petition. It is submitted that this notice of opposition having been filed by Rameshwar Dayal was not within the knowledge of the petitioner till 11.6.1999 and that is why it did not find mention in the complaint filed by him on 27.1.1998.