Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 583 - HC - Companies LawTrademark registration - period of limitation - Held that:- In construing the period of limitation extended by the amendment and the rights and interest of the parties, the dispute as to whether the second respondent should be presumed to have known of the existence of the petitioner much earlier to the date of the application, and this circumstance necessarily requiring an adjudication as to a finding of fact of the same is a case in point as to the uncertainties that have to be accommodated in permitting the period of limitation to be enlarged in favour of the second respondent in the The contentions of the respondent that the petitioner had made attempts to seek registration of trade marks with the word "Technova" in the year 1989 and that the respondent learnt about it in or about the year 2002, and had filed objections to the grant of such trade marks, etc., would also indicate that there is no certainty that the second respondent was unaware of the petitioner's existence and therefore, the application was not belated. In any event, it may be safely said that the second respondent's remedy under section 22 had become barred under the unamended provision. The second respondent then could not, under a different avatar as the proprietor of a registered trade mark, claim an extended period of limitation for purposes of the Companies Act. The remedy, if any, against infringement of a registered trade mark is concerned, being available to the second respondent to be established and adjudicated in independent proceedings, the application, by the second respondent under section 22, was clearly barred and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and is accordingly quashed.
|