PRESTIGE HOUSEWARES INDIA LIMITED Vs. PRESTIGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Prestige Housewares (India) Limited and TTK Prestige Limited, Banglore are the petitioners herein. They have filed this petition in O.P. No. 401 of 1995 for Rectification of the Register for removal of Trade Mark under Sections 11, 18, 32, 46 and 56 read with Sections 107 and 108 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 seeking the said relief as against the respondents 1 to 5.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is as follows:- "(a) THE first petitioner is the proprietor of the trade mark'Prestige'registered in 1949 in class 21 in respect of non-electric cooking and kitchen utensils. THE second petitioner is the proprietor of the trade mark'Prestige'registered in 1981 in class 11 in respect of installation for heating, cooking, refrigerating and dying purposes included in class 11. (b) THE respondents are the proprietors of the trade mark'Prestige'registered in class 24 in respect of textile piece goods for sale. THE respondents claiming to be the proprietors of the trade mark'Prestige'issued a copy right and trade mark warning notice. (c) THE petitioners belong to the famous TTK Group of Companies. One of the member companies of the Group namely TTK Textile Limited deal in textile piece goods. THE petitioners have intention to use the trade mark'Prestige'either by themselves or through their licensees in respect of textile piece goods. (d) Registration in class 24 in the name of the respondents in respect of textile goods would be a hindrance to such intended use by the petitioners. THE use of an identical trade mark'Prestige'by the respondents is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and public. THE registration of the said trade mark'Prestige'in the name of the respondents was obtained by misrepresentation, fraud and suppression of material facts. (e) Hence, the petitioners have come forward with this petition requesting this Court to expunge the trade mark'Prestige'registered in class 24 in the name of the respondents by giving a suitable direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks and declare that the said registration is no longer valid."

(3.) UNDER those circumstances, as agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter was posted on 18.1.2000 for hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties for deciding the preliminary point raised in this case as mentioned above. Accordingly, the counsel for the parties would argue at length on this point on the adjourned dates.