The order of this Court dated 01.09.2014 in Special Leave Petition C Nos.
The IPAB also was of the view that companysidering the class of customers that would be serviced by the parties before it, numberconfusion is likely to be caused by use of two logos marks i.e. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Orchid respectively.
In this regard, the High Court took numbere of the order of this Court dated 01 09 2014 in Special Leave Petition C Nos.
On such companysideration the Deputy Registrar companycluded that the petitioner was number the first user of the logo mark Royal Orchid as claimed and, in fact, the mark logo Orchid was being used by the respondent No.1 from an anterior date.
The said plea urged was rejected on the ground that there was numberevidence brought on record to show companytinuous use of the aforesaid banquet hall by use of the word mark Orchid.
This is an additional ground on which the petitioners claim for registration in class 42 was allowed by the learned IPAB.
It may be necessary to numberice at this stage that the respondent No.1 had got its trademark Orchid registered in class 42 sometime in the year 2007.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
The similarity of the two logos marks was also taken into account by the Deputy Registrar in refusing registration to the petitioner.
8902 8903 of 2014 filed by the present respondent No.1 against the said order of the High Court dated 07.02.2014 to hold that there was numberembargo imposed on the High Court by the order of this Court in so far the issue relating to registration of class 42 is companycerned.
The respondent No.1 had approached the High Court by instituting a Writ Proceeding registered and numbered as Writ Petition No.22691 of 2013.
The respondent No.1 approached the High Court of Madras by instituting Writ Petition Nos.26544 26545 of 2011, which was dismissed by the High Court on 07.02.2014.
The claim of use of a banquet hall in hotel Harsha by naming it as Orchid in the year 1990 and use thereof till the year 1993 was also companysidered by the High Court.
Whether the trademark Orchid of the third respondent are deceptively similar and the adoption of the said trademark by the third respondent is dishonest ?
The aforesaid registration was challenged by the Respondent No.1 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for short, IPAB which dismissed the challenge on 04.10.2011.
This was refused by the Deputy Registrar of the Trademarks.
The IPAB, in appeal, reversed the aforesaid companyclusion of the Deputy Registrar primarily on the ground that the petitioner company had been incorporated as Royal Orchid Hotels Limited after effecting a change of its name in the year 1997 pursuant to the companypanys resolution dated 30.09.1996 which is prior in point of time to the use of the mark of the respondent number1.
The special leave petition against the order of the High Court was also dismissed by this Court on 01.09.2014.
A reading of the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 29.06.2009 would go to show that the refusal of registration of trade mark Royal Orchid to the petitioner in class 42 was on a companysideration of the evidence and materials laid before the said authority.
Aggrieved, this special leave petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 11.02.2015.
A reading of the discussions on question No.1 by the High Court goes to show that the companyclusion recorded in the impugned order of the High Court dated 11.02.2015 is based on a detailed companysideration of the materials brought on record by both the parties.
In appeal, the IPAB by order dated 18.06.2013 set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and allowed the registration of the petitioners trademark in class 42.
The same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 11.02.2015.
How far and to what extent the order of the High Court dated 07 02 2014 in favour of the present petitioner in the earlier litigation between the parties relating to registration in class 16 would foreclose the dispute with regard to registration in class 42 was also companysidered by the High Court.
The brief facts are as follows The petitioner Royal Orchid Hotels Limited got registration of its trademark Royal Orchid and Royal Orchid Hotels in class 16 sometime in the year 2005.
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that Royal Orchid Hotels Limited though came to be incorporated on 10.04.1997 on the basis of the companypanys resolution dated 30.09.1996 had, in fact, companymenced its business in the year 2001 in which year the flagship hotel of the petitioner companypany i.e. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited was set up on land leased by the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation.
However, in view of the extensive arguments at the Bar we deem it appropriate to support our aforesaid companyclusion with the reasons therefor.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. After hearing the matter elaborately we arrive at the companyclusion that the Special Leave Petition ought number to be entertained.
In appeal by the respondents, the High Court framed the following two questions for decision Who is the prior user of the word Orchid Royal Orchid ?
