PATIALA DISTILLERS Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has not entered appearance despite of service. It is pointed out that the respondent No. 2 had also not appeared before the Intellectual property Appellate Board. Accordingly, I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner herein on 25th August, 1986 had applied for registration of label 'commando XXX Rum' in class 33. An advertisement was published in the trade Mark Journal on 1st November, 1993 and thereafter the respondent No. 2 filed their opposition.

(3.) LEARNED Registrar vide his order dated 24th November, 1997 rejected the petitioner's application for registration and allowed respondent No. 2's opposition.