IP Case Law › Trade Marks › American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Priva…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Sections 18, 46 and 48, Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Brief facts
Mac Laboratories applied to rectify the register by removing the appellant's mark for non-use. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Calcutta dismissed the application, but a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed the respondent's appeal.
Issues before the Court
Whether the appellant's registration, obtained on the basis of proposed use through an Indian registered user, was liable to be removed.
Court's findings
The Court reversed the Single Judge and upheld the Registrar's dismissal of the rectification application.
Decision
Appeal allowed; the respondent's appeal before the Single Judge dismissed with costs and the Registrar's order confirmed; costs of the appeal to the appellant.
Key legal principle / ratio
A proprietor may validly register a mark proposed to be used through a registered user, and such a registration is not liable to removal for non-use merely because the proprietor itself has not used the mark.
Important paragraph references
Concluding paragraph: disposal. Read the judgment for the detailed discussion of Sections 18, 46 and 48.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Foreign Proprietor Non-use Proposed Use Rectification Registered User
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order