RHIZOME DISTILLERIES PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UDYOG BHAVAN NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent/ Intellectual Property Appellate Board, directing the 3rd respondent, the Registrar of Trade Marks, to remove the writ petitioner's trade mark 'IMPERIAL GOLD', registered under No.116168 in Class 33 from the Register of Trade Marks, in the application filed by the 4th respondent herein under sections 11(1), 11(3), 11(10), 18 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 2 of the Trade Marks (Applications and Appeals to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board) Rules, 2003.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are culled out from the materials available on record to decide the issue involved in the writ petition are as follows: THE 4th respondent is a company incorporated under the laws of France, having their registered office at Paris, France and they are the ultimate holding company of various entities, all engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or distribution of wines, liquors and spirits. THE 4th respondent company features as one of the two leading players of the world in the spirits and wine market and is number one player outside United States of America. THE said holding company by itself and through its subsidiaries is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of a variety of alcoholic beverages worldwide and their products - whiskies, liquors and other spirits - are sold in various internationally renowned and acclaimed brands such as 'ROYAL SALUTE', 'CHIVAS REGAL', '100 PIPERS' etc. Apart from these brands, the 4th respondent, through its subsidiaries, owns locally acclaimed brands such as 'IMPERIAL BLUE' and 'ROYAL STAG'.

(3.) IT is the further case of the 4th respondent that the application No.1161682 for impugned registration for the trade mark 'Rhizome's IMPERIAL GOLD' was advertised in Trade Mark Journal No.1305 (Supplement) III and was made available to the public on 04.11.2003; but the said advertisement escaped the attention of the 4th respondent and was registered inadvertently by the 3rd respondent in contravention of the objective and provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.