PLAZA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. KOHINOOR CHEMICAL CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAZA Chemical Industries, the petitioners, have filed this Petition by way of an appeal against an order passed by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their application for rectification. As from April 16, 1943 a trade mark consisting of a label containing a device of a head of a woman, snow clad mountains and the word "tibet" was registered in the name of the respondents. Kohinoor Chemical Company Ltd, in respect of facial cream. Upon partition of India the respondents migrated to Pakistan. It is the case of the petitioners that since 1962 they started manufacturing and marketing a facial cream under a label containing the words "tibet SNOW". On March 6, 1964 the Petitioners filed an application in the office of the Trade Marks Registry at Delhi for registration of the said label as a trade mark. That application was refused stating that the respondents were Registered Proprietors of a trade mark containing the word "tibet SNOW". On March 4, 1966 the Petitioners made an application in the office of the Trade Marks Registry at Bombay for removal of the Registered Trade-Mark in the name of the Respondents. In support of this application they alleged that the respondents got the said trade mark registered without any bona fide intention on their part to use it in respect of facial cream. They further alleged that upto one month before the date of the application for rectification, the respondents have not used the said trade mark for a continuous period of five years in respect of facial cream. According to them, under circumstances, this should be regarded as an abandoned mark by the respondents.

(2.) THE application for removal of the trade mark was resisted by the Respondents. In their affidavit in reply they contended that prior to partition of the country they were carrying on business at Delhi and after the partition of the country they shifted to Karachi in West Pakistan. They also stated that the goods covered by the registration of the trade mark were being sold in India until a ban on imports by the Government of India was imposed. In spite of the ban, according to them, the mark was being used in India through the medium of advertisement in leading newspapers and journals, all of which had circulation in India as well. They also stated that no sooner the embargo placed on import of cosmetics in India is lifted by the Central Government, they would readily and immediately export their goods to India. They submitted that the temporary suspension of export due to restrictions imposed by the Government was not a ground for rectification.

(3.) BEFORE the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks the application of the Petitioners of removal was supported in view of the provisions of Section 46 (1) (b) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The ground was that upto one month before the date of the application, a continuous period of five years or longer had elapsed during which the trade mark was registered and during which there was no bona fide use thereof in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being. It was admitted by the respondents that for the requisite period the mark was not used in India. It was however alleged that such a non-user was due to special circumstances in the nature of import restrictions imposed by Government and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 46 (3) of the Act the petitioners were not entitled to rely upon such non-use. That contention was accepted by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks and the application of the petitioners was rejected.