Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1996 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (5) TMI 409 - SC - Companies LawWhether the High Court was right in refusing to rectify and strike off the trade marks of the respondents from the register of trade marks? Held that:- It is true that while exercising discretion, the Court under Section 46 of the Act should take into consideration not only commercial interest of the parties but also public interest The High Court refused to exercise the discretion to strike off the trade mark from the register. It is seen that the appellant had not abandoned, at any point of time, the use of the trade mark of the respondent-registered proprietor till filing of the application. Though the appellant has not used the trade mark by itself since 1954 and after the expiry of the permitted use by Sen Raleigh until the notice was issued by the respondent directing the appellant not to use the trade mark, the appellant came to use the same in passing off bicycles manufactured by it under trade mark of the respondent. It is not relevant for the purpose of Section 46(1)(b) whether the bicycles were manufactured with the assistance of technical know-how passed on by Sen Raleigh or the permitted user. Suffice it to state that the appellant, as a fact, had used the trade mark of the respondent in passing off the bicycles manufactured by it. The High Court, in our view, declined, for good reasons, to rectify the trade mark under Section Act b) of the Act. We are also not persuaded to take a different view from that of the High Court. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court has properly exercised its discretion and refused to rectify and strike off the trade mark, from the register of trade marks of the Registrar. Appeal dismissed.
|