K.N BASHA,CHAIRMAN - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated 17.11.2009 dismissing the Interlocutory Petition dated 19.09.2009 filed by the appellant herein.
(2.) THE appellant filed an application seeking for registration of a trade mark PREETHAM (label mark) advertised under application No.1496400 in class 21, under proviso to Section 20(1) in Trade Marks Journal No.1383 dated 01.01.2008. The respondent herein filed a Notice of Opposition raising objection against registration of the aforesaid mark under various provisions of Section 9,11 & 18 of the Act & Rules (hereinafter referred as Act & Rules). The appellant filed the Counter Statement to the Notice of Opposition.
(3.) PERUSAL of Interlocutory Application filed by the appellant herein discloses that a specific objection was raised to the effect that TM -5 has not been signed by the opponent and has not been verified in accordance with the trade marks law and hence the same is liable to be rejected as it was signed by the advocate for the opponent who was authorized to prosecute the case by raising such grounds, the appellant herein sought for dismissal of the notice of opposition. The respondent herein also filed a Counter Statement to the Interlocutory Petition filed by the appellant. It is specifically stated by the respondent in the Counter Statement that the Notice of Opposition (TM -5) was singed by the Agent/ Constituted Attorney for the opponent. Rule 48(2) of the Trade Marks Rules clearly states that the Notice of Opposition shall be verified at the foot by the opponent or by some other person who is acquainted with the facts of the case. It is mentioned by the respondent in the said counter that the appellant is a perpetual infringer and had applied for registration of the mark PREETHAM with the malafide intention to ride on the goodwill of the opponent. The respondent also placed reliance on the Impugned Order dated 13.03.2008 passed against the appellant in opposition No. MAS -248212 against his application No.1391773 in Class 21. The respondent sought for dismissal of the said Interlocutory Petition No.1391773. Deputy Registrar considered the contentions of both sides and also quoted and relied provisions under rule 48(2) and held that the notice of opposition shall be verified at the foot by the opponent or some other person who is acquainted with the facts of the case. By assigning such reason, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks Registry dismissed the Interlocutory Petition filed by the appellant herein. Being aggrieved against the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.;