Since the registration was granted in the year 1995, on this basis the IPAB took the view that Rectification Petition was filed after a period of almost 10 years from the date of registration and therefore it was belated.
However, before the application for rectification companyld be returned by the Registry of Delhi High Court, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board hereinafter to be referred as IPAB was companystituted on 15.9.2003.
The appellant has also been supplying the said goods under the aforesaid trade marks and names to Respondent No.
1 had obtained registration of trade mark KUNDAN in its favour.
A perusal of the order of the IPAB would disclose that as per the Appellate Board though there is a delay of 10 years, numberreason has been assigned by the appellant for the said delay and the Rectification Petition was number presented within time before the Madras High Court.
The appellant claims that he has been using the trade mark KUNDAN KUNDAN CAB and the name Kundan Cables India since 1980.
In the Writ Petition challenging this order the appellant had submitted that the appellant had pursued its remedy by filing the petition before the Delhi High Court on 2.5.1995 itself that is immediately after the grant of registration of the trade mark Kundan in favour of Respondent No.
Notice was issued by the IPAB to the Respondent Nos.
In fact he was the supplier of these goods to Respondent No.
Aggrieved by the order of the IPAB dismissing the petition, the appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court which has also been dismissed, as the view taken by the IPAB has found favour with the High Court.
A Special Leave Petition against the order of the Division Bench being Special Leave Petition Civil No.
This petition was filed on 2.5.1995.
However, this argument is brushed aside by the High Court with the remarks that the petition was filed before a Court viz.
For uncertain reasons, the matter dragged on before the IPAB for quite sometime and ultimately vide orders dated 9.3.2012 the IPAB dismissed the Rectification Petition on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of about 10 years from the date when registration was obtained by Respondent No.
It was filed on 2.5.1995.
102 of 1994.
The petition filed in Delhi High Court was, thus, directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court.
On the establishment of this IPAB, such rectification applications are number to be entertained by the IPAB which has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such applications.
The Registrar of Delhi High Court passed the orders dated 29.10.2004 directing return of the Rectification Petition to the Counsel for the appellant and it was finally returned on 2.11.2004.
1 filed a miscellaneous petition, being M.P. No.
Therefore, presentation of the petition before the IPAB on 2.11.2004 was taken as the date of filing the petition wherein rectification order was challenged.
This happened in the year 1995.
This prompted the appellant to file an application under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act in the High Court of Delhi for rectification of the registered Trade Mark No.
1 was using the trade mark Kundan, he immediately filed the suit for injunction against Respondent No.
As per the aforesaid orders of the High Court, which was upheld by this Court also, the appellant was supposed to file the petition for rectification of the registered trade mark before the appropriate Court, as Delhi High Court did number have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
When the appellant came to know that Respondent No.
1 by virtue of an assignment deed executed by Respondent No.
16800 of 2002 was also dismissed vide order dated 20.9.2002.
The Respondent No.
During the pendency of the said suit, Respondent No.
In the said proceedings an objection was raised by Respondent No.
2 in respect of a pending application for registration.
This order was upheld by the Division Bench.
507445 in class 9 and for cancelling/ expunging the same.
Sometime in the year 1994, the appellant came to know that Respondent No.
However, the moment this petition was returned by the Registrar i.e.1 was using the Trade Mark KUNDAN.
The appellant prompltly filed the petition under Section 45 and 46 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act for rectification of the said registered trade mark and for cancelling expunging the same.
On same date, the appellant presented the petition before the IPAB.
1 as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the said petition.
Since 1980 the petitioner has been using the trademark Kundan Kundan Cab and the trade name Kundan Cables India in respect of the said goods.
31 of 2005 on the ground that the Rectification Petition companyld number have been filed as a companytinuity of the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
Vide orders dated 10.10.2001, a single Judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and directed that the petition be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court.
The appellant immediately filed a suit for injunction in the District Court at Delhi which was registered as Suit No.
The registration was obtained by Respondent No.
1 in the District Court of Delhi which shows that in all earnestness, it wanted to protect his interest in the said trade mark.
1 obtained registration of the said Trade Mark in its favour.
1 2 who filed their replies.
K. SIKRI,J. Leave Granted.
During the pendency of this suit Respondent No.
Before adverting to the companye issue it would be apposite to numbere down the genesis of the dispute.
The appellant herein is the proprietor of a companycern by the name of Kundan Cables which is engaged in the manufacture of electric accessories and fittings including electrical switches, main switches, fuse units, wires and cables and electrical irons.
The IPAB took the view that Rectification Petition was wrongly filed in the Delhi High Court as jurisdiction vested in the Madras High Court.
