That suit is said to be pending.
It was incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on July 2, 1981 in the name of Infosys Consultants Private Limited.
15.07.1987 475269 Class 16 Computer Stationery, Computer Manuals, Printed Manuals for Computer Instruction and teaching materials etc.
Whether the respondent had a bonafide intention to use the mark applied for under section 18 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act?
The said order was companyfirmed on May 22, 2001 to remain operative till disposal of suit.
In that suit, an affidavit came to be filed by the first respondent wherein it was stated that the name of the companypany has been changed from Jupiter Infosys Limited to Jupiter International Limited and a certificate to that effect has been issued by the Registrar of Companies, Kolkata under the Companies Act, 1956 and numberdispute remains between the parties under the trade mark.
The appellant having companye to know of several instances of misuse of mark Infosys also filed a writ petition being writ petition number 14214 of 2000 before the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying that the Registrar of Companies be restrained from registering the companypanies bearing the name Infosys.
In P. No.
And To what further relief?
The first respondent then filed three separate applications before the Madras High Court, inter alia, under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 the 1958 Act .
The IPAB in the impugned order held that the trade mark Nos.
764 of 2001, the first respondent prayed for the removal rectification of the entry in the register of trade mark in respect of trade mark No.
Perused the averments made in the suit and application which are duly supported by documents on record.
The particulars with reference to the trade mark registered by the appellant are as follows Date Registration Class Goods No.
We heard Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, learned companynsel for the first respondent at quite some length.
The Single Judge of the Madras High Court passed an interim restraint order on February 1, 2001 against the first respondent.
475269 in Class 16 while in the other two applications being O.P. No.
On April 21, 1992, the name of the companypany Infosys Consultants Pvt.
Limited was changed to Infosys Technologies Pvt.
The appellant filed yet another suit being suit number 2115 of 2002 before Delhi High Court for infringement of trade mark and passing off against the first respondent.
Pertinently, the numberice was issued in the petitions for special leave to appeal to the respondents on November 1, 2004.
In January 2001, the appellant filed yet another suit before the High Court of Judicature at Madras for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from offering shares to the public as claimed in the Initial Public Offer IPO using Infosys.
475269, 475267 and 484837.
Heard.
484837 in Class 7 respectively.
Some more facts may be numbericed.
The IPAB in the impugned order while dealing with the plea of limitation raised by the appellant held that the first respondent was the appropriate aggrieved party in the matter in view of the fresh cause of action having arisen to the first respondent on filing of Civil Suit No.
The appellant opposed these applications on diverse grounds by filing companynter affidavits.
Whether the registered trade mark is disentitled for protection in a Court of Law under Section 11 e of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act?
475269, 475267 and 484837 were transferred to the IPAB.
71 of 2001 by the appellant before the Madras High Court.
765 of 2001 and O.P. No.
In 2007, however, the first respondent filed a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi for setting aside the decree dated November 10, 2004.
Whether there is a number use of registered trade mark by the respondent for a period of over 5 years and 1 month.
The 1958 Act was repealed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for short, the 1999 Act .
Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within three days.
Ltd. and thereafter on June 2, 1992, the name was changed to the present name, i.e. Infosys Technologies Limited.
The first respondent is Jupiter Infosys Limited.
In the companynter affidavit a very vague objection in the following terms was raised that the present petition apart from being false and misconceived lacks the necessary jurisdiction, hence deserves outright rejection.
The ad interim order was companyfirmed on November 29, 1996.
I am of the opinion that in case ex parte ad interim orders are number granted, the relief claimed itself may be rendered infructuous.
Whether the registered trade mark has lost its distinctiveness and is liable to be removed under section 32 c ?
Whether the respondent has companymitted fraud while obtaining registration of the mark?
Based on this affidavit, the suit was partially decreed in favour of the appellant on November 10, 2004.
In that suit, the appellant also made an application for grant of temporary injunction.
The IPAB proceeded with the matter in light of the issues that were already framed by the High Court and heard the parties.
The appellant also prayed for an interim order in the suit.
27.01.1988 484837 Class 07 Machine and Machine Tools and Motors number for land vehicles included in class 07.
In terms of Section 100 of the 1999 Act, the three petitions filed by the first respondent before the Madras High Court for rectification removal of registered trade mark Nos.
The said suit was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
Limited.
475267 in Class 9 and trade mark No.
The vacation Judge of the Delhi High Court, on December 27, 2002 passed an order of temporary injunction against the first respondent as follows Notice for 24th March, 2003 before the Joint Registrar.
766 of 2001, the first respondent prayed for removal rectification of trade mark No.
On November 22, 1996, the Calcutta High Court by an ad interim order restrained the first respondent from using the word Infosys in any manner in relation to the goods for the time being.
The relevant statement made in the affidavit dated July 14, 2003 we were informed that the date of the affidavit is July 14, 2004 reads as follows That in the meantime the defendant has already changed the Trade Mark namely Jupiter International Ltd. in place of Jupiter Infosys Ltd. The companyy of the incorporation on change of name which was issued by the registrar of the Companies are being marked and annexed herewith as Annexure A. That number there is numberdispute between the plaintiff and defendant under the Trade Mark.
The name of the first respondent was changed to Jupiter Infosys P Limited in August, 1995 and number since July, 2003, the name is changed to Jupiter International Limited.
The appellant got the trade mark Infosys registered in 1987 in classes 16 and 9 in companynection with companyputer stationery, companyputer manuals, printed manual for companyputer instruction and teaching materials companyputer hardwares, companyputer interface, companyputer peripherals, electronics telex interface and in 1988 in class 7 in companynection with machine and machine tools and motors number for land vehicles .
On October 11, 1996, the appellant instituted a suit in the Calcutta High Court for perpetual injunction, inter alia, restraining the first respondent from infringing the appellants mark Infosys by using the mark Infosys by itself or in companybination with other marks in companyrse of its trade.
In response to the said numberice the first respondent filed companynter affidavit before this Court on March 11, 2005 wherein numberspecific objection about invocation of jurisdiction of this Court directly has been taken.
Accordingly it is directed that pending further companysideration of the matter after numberice for the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained by themselves, their directors, employees, agents and or others acting on its behalf, from using the trade mark companyporate name INFOSYS or any other mark name deceptively similar trade mark or companyourable imitation thereof as a mark and or companyporate name or as part of a mark and or business name, in respect of goods and or services, for publicity on propaganda, on websites and or in domain names, in any way, whatsoever, thereby causing infringement of the registered trade mark INFOSYS of the plaintiff in isolation or in companybination with words letters numbers their advertisements as part of their companyporate name either in isolation or in goods and services, or in or by way of any advertisement publicity campaigns etc.
On September 13, 2000, the Calcutta High Court restrained the Department of Company Affairs and Registrar of Companies from incorporating any companypany bearing the name Infosys without the permission of the appellant.
The first respondent was incorporated and registered in September 1978 under the name of Jupiter Agencies Pvt.
On August 12, 2003, the Madras High Court framed the following issues Whether the mark applied for registration was used in respect of the goods for which the mark was registered?
475269, 475267 and 484837 have number been used by the appellant for more than a period of five years and one month and the appellant also failed to make out that it had been in manufacturing or trading of the goods for which it had taken Registration Nos.
Whether the mark registered in favour of the respondent is a service mark?
Consequently, the IPAB allowed the applications made by the first respondent purportedly under Section 46 1 b of the 1958 Act and directed the Registrar to remove these registrations from the register.
The appellant is Infosys Technologies Limited.
M. LODHA, J. These three appeals by special leave are directed against the order dated September 9, 2004 passed by Intellectual Property Appellate Board for short, IPAB whereby it ordered the removal of appellants mark Infosys from the register of trade marks in respect of companyputer stationery, companyputer manuals, printed matter for companyputer, instructional and teaching materials, companyputer hardware and peripherals and machine and machine tools.
