S. Jagadeesan, Chairman - (1.) THE appellants have filed these appeals against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, the second respondent herein, rejecting their opposition under Nos. DEL-6548 and DEL-6549 in respect of application Nos. 450685 and 450688, filed by the first respondent for registration of their trademarks 'RALSON SUPER STAR' and 'RALSON SILVER STAR' and directing the registration of the trademarks of the first respondent.
(2.) The first respondent herein filed two applications before the second respondent, the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi. The first respondent filed one application bearing No. 450685 dated 6.3.1986 for registration of the words 'RALSON SUPER STAR' as trademark, for the goods tyres and tubes for cycles and rickshaws, falling in Class 12 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, hereinafter called the said Act. They also filed another application bearing No. 450688 on 6.3.1986 for the registration of the words 'RALSON SILVER STAR' as trademark for their goods types and tubes for cycles and rickshaws, failing in Class 12 of the said Act. Both the applications were accepted by the second respondent subject to disclaimer of the words 'SUPER STAR' and 'SILVER STAR'. Those were published in the Trade Mark Journal No. 973 dated 16.12.1983 at page 1171. The appellants herein lodged their opposition on 2.1.1990 in their opposition Nos. DEL-6548 and DEL-6549 stating that they are the proprietors of the trademark 'EASTERN STAR' under Nos. 12052 and 11426 for the goods saddles, cycle bells, cycle pumps, cycle tubes, etc. It is further stated that they are the registered proprietors of the same trademark 'EASTERN STAR' under No. 264019 for the goods cycles and cycle parts and all these three marks were inter-associated. The appellants also claimed that they are a reputed company engaged in the trade of cycles and cycle spare-parts thereof since the year 1952 and are having extensive business with a turnover of crores of rupees. Their objection for the registration of the first respondent's trademark is that the impugned mark is hit by Sections 12(1), 11(a), 11(e) and 18(1) of the said Act and as such, the impugned mark cannot be registered.
(3.) THE first respondent filed their counter statement to the opposition of the appellant stating that the first respondent is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'RALSON' and other trademarks starting with words 'RALSON'. THEre is a clear distinction between the trademark of the appellant and the first respondent. Hence, Section 11(a) is not attracted. THEreafter, both the parties filed their evidences. But unfortunately neither of the parties appeared before the second respondent on any of the hearing dates and ultimately, the second respondent perused the evidence produced by the parties and disposed of the matter after considering the evidences. Under the impugned order, the second respondent held that though the goods may be of same description, the trademark of the appellants and the first respondent are distinctive by itself and as such, there cannot be any confusion or deception and consequently ordered the registration of the first respondent's applications. As against the same, the appellants filed two appeals CM(M) 469 of 1993 and CM(M) 472 of 1993 on the file of Delhi High Court. Both the appeals stood transferred to this Appellate Board pursuant to Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.;