The Trade Mark was duly registered and a Certificate of Registration was issued on 31st of July, 1957 which was renewed twice, in 1962 for a period of seven years and again for seven years with effect from 22.2.70.
458134 was granted to them.
Since further renewal was number obtained after 1977, it was removed from the Register but the appellants companytinued to publicise their Trade Mark WHIRLPOOL as also the companypany name through publications Which had wide circulation in this companyntry and thus managed to maintain their reputation among the business circle including prospective customers and buyers.
The first legislation brought on the Statute Book was the India Merchandise Marks Act, 1889 Act No.
from using the Trade Mark Whirlpool in relation to their products.
It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.
On 6th of Aug. 1986, Mrs. Sumitra Charat Ram and Mr. N.R.Dongre, as Trustees of Chinar Trust applied for registration of the Trade Mark Whirlpool in class under Application No.
4 of 1889 .
The history of legislation is more than a century old.
Prior to the enactment of Trade Marks Act, 1940, the disputes or problems, specially those relating to infringement of trade marks or passing off were decided in the light of Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, while the registration problem was tackled by obtaining a declaration as to ownership of a trade mark under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
5 of 1940 .
414 of 1992.
In the meantime, Whirlpool was registered as the Trade Mark of the Chinar Trust on 30.11.1992 and a Certificate of Registration No.
On 28.2.1997, the appellant filed an application in From TM 12 for renewal of the Trade Mark Whirlpool in Class 7 and the Registrar, by his order dated 29th July, 1997, allowed the renewal for three successive periods, namely, 22.2.1977, 22.2.1984 and finally 22.2.1991.
458134, which was duly advertised by the Registrar in Trade Marks Journal No.
Thereafter, on 8th Aug., 1997 appellant made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint in Suit No.
WHIRLPOOL, true to their name have created a WHIRLPOOL of litigation in this companyntry.
Saghir Ahmad.
Against this numberice, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was dismissed on 8.12.1997.
Based, as they are, the United States of America, they started the gyrating movement by applying for registration of their Trade Mark WHIRLPOOL to the Registrar of the Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, which has since been replaced by the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and which for the sake of brevity, shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act.
The present Act which, as pointed out above, as repealed the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, 1889 and Trade Marks Act, 1940, also provides in Section 129 that any document declaring or purporting to declare the ownership or title of a person to a trade mark other than a registered trade mark, shall number be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Special Leave Petition filed against this order by the Chinar Trust has already been dismissed by this Court on 30.8.1996.
This Act follows the pattern of Trade Marks Act, 1938 of the United kingdom.
J. Leave granted.
Both these acts were repealed by the Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted temporary injunction to the appellant on 31.10.1994 which was upheld by the Division Bench on 21.4.1995.
This was followed by the Trade Marks Act, 1940 Act No.
An appeal against this order which was filed in the Delhi High Court on 7.11.1992 has since been admitted on 1.2.1993 and registered as C.M. Main No.
945 on Page 845 pursuant to which the appellant filed their Opposition on 6th January, 1989, but their objections were dismissed by the Assistant Registrar by his order dated 12.8.1992.
