SATNAM OVERSEAS Vs SANT RAM & CO.
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: C.A. No.-010528-010528 / 2013
Diary number: 24592 / 2007
Advocates: SHANTANU KUMAR Vs
D. S. MAHRA
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10528 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15496 of 2007)
Satnam Overseas … Appellant
Versus
Sant Ram & Co. & Anr. … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10529 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18212 of 2007)
And CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10530 OF 2013
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18213 of 2007)
J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein preferred an application before
the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi for
Page 2
2
rectification of entry in respect of Registered Trade Mark
“KOHINOOR” in Class 30 registered in the name of
Respondent No.1 on the ground of non-usage for a period
in excess of five years. The application was allowed by
the Registrar vide order dated 18.6.1992 and the entry in
respect of registered trademark 274006 in Class 30
registered in the names of Respondent No.1 was modified
by amending the specification of goods to read as “Rice
for sale in the cities of Faizabad, Maunath Bhanjan,
Jaunpur, Shahganj and Agra in the State of Uttar Pradesh”.
Respondent No.1 therein then filed an application for
review of the order dated 18.6.1992 which was partly
allowed vide order dated 15.02.1993 by Assistant
Registrar, adding the town of Saharanpur in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, in which Respondent No.1 was allowed to
use his trademark. Consequently Respondent No.1 was
allowed to use the trademark “KOHINOOR” in six cities in
the State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. Respondent No.1 then filed CMM No.303 of 2003
before Delhi High Court against the rectification and
Page 3
3
review order dated 18.06.1992 and 15.2.1993 respectively
passed by the Assistant Registrar of trademarks restricting
the use of trademark only in few cities of the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Respondent No.1 also filed CMM No.313 of 1996
against the grant of trademark registration of all kinds of
rice for the purpose of export in favour of the appellant.
Respondent No.1 also preferred CMM No.327 of 1993
against the grant of trademark registration in favour of the
appellant throughout India.
4. All the above-mentioned applications were clubbed
together and an order was passed by the learned Single
Judge on 11.09.2003 whereby CMM No.303 of 1993 was
allowed to the extent of permitting the Respondent to use
trademark for the entire state of Uttar Pradesh. CMM
No.313 of 1996 was also partly allowed. CMM No.327 of
1993 was dismissed.
5. The appellant then preferred OCJA No.5 of 2003
before the Division Bench against the order of the learned
Single Judge passed in CMM No.313 of 1996 and OCJA
No.6 was preferred against the order of the learned Single
Page 4
4
Judge passed in CMM No.303 of 1993. The appellant,
alleging violation of the order passed by the Division
Bench on 10.11.2003, staying the operation of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, filed a Contempt
Application No.928 of 2006. The Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court passed a common order on 15.05.2007
upholding all the findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge.
6. Appellant herein then preferred three Special Leave
Petitions. SLP (C) NO.15496 of 2007 was preferred against
the order in OCJA No.6 of 2003, SLP(C) No.18213 of 2007
was preferred against the order in OCJA No.5 of 2003 and
SLP(C) No.18212 of 2007 was preferred against the order
in Contempt Application No.928 of 2006.
7. The appellant has urged in the appeal that the High
Court has committed an error in permitting the second
respondent to use the trademark “KOHINOOR” in the
entire State of Uttar Pradesh, especially in the wake of the
registration of trade mark in favour of the appellant under
Section 12(3) read with Section 46(2) of the Trademark
Page 5
5
Act. Further, it was also pointed out that the High Court
was not justified in applying the geographical limitations
thereby permitting the second respondent to use the
trademark “KOHINOOR” in the entire State of Uttar
Pradesh, while the Assistant Registrar of Trademark
permitted to use the trademark only in six cities, which
was later on extended to another District, entertaining the
review petition filed by the respondents. Further, it was
also pointed out that under the provisions of Section 12(3)
of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the honest
and concurrent use is permissible and the Deputy
Registrar of Trademark has rightly allowed the Appellant
to use concurrently the registered trademark No.274996
KOHINOOR in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh for sale
except the six cities mentioned above.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the High Court was right in holding the
second respondent is entitled to benefit of Sub-section (3)
of Section 12 of the Trade and Merchandise Act since
there is ample evidence on record to show that the second
Page 6
6
respondent bonafide and honestly adopted the word
“KOHINOOR” as its trademark. The High Court has rightly
held that the invoices produced in evidence by the
respondent showing sale of rice to distributors and dealers
in various cities in the State of Uttar Pradesh and they in
turn were making deliveries to retailers in smaller towns,
would clearly indicate user of the trademark by the
respondent. Learned counsel also pointed out that the
geographical limitations incorporated by way of an
amendment are based on practical consideration of facts
and trade practices. The impugned order was passed by
the High Court noticing that the respondent has been
using the trademark “KOHINOOR” since the year 1961 and
had obtained the registration thereof in the year 1971 and
that the appellant got registration only subsequently on
24.2.1981.
9. We notice, the appellant herein applied for
registration of trademark “KOHINOOR” only in July, 1985.
The application was allowed and the trademark was
advertised in Trademark Journal in 1985. Yet another
Page 7
7
application was filed by the appellant for registration of
trademark “KOHINOOR” in respect of rice for export
included in class 30 on 3rd July, 1985. The said trademark
was published in the Trademark Journal on 11th October,
1989. The appellant filed rectification application for
deregistration of trademark “KOHINOOR” in favour of the
respondent in respect of rice in class 30 on the plea that
the respondent had got the trademark “KOHINOOR”
registered without bonafide intention to use it and there
was no bonafide use of the trademark by the respondent
for a period of 5 years and 1 month preceding the date of
filing of the application for rectification.
10. We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the
interpretation of provisions of Section 46(1) and 46(2) of
the Act, which are reproduced hereinbelow :-
46(1). Subject to the provisions of section 47, a registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of any of the goods in respect of which it is registered on application made in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar by any person aggrieved on the ground either—
(a) that the trade mark was registered without any bonafide intention on the part of the
Page 8
8
applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods by him or, in a case to which the provisions of section 45 apply, by the company concerned, and that there has, in fact, been no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to a date one month before the date of the application; or
(b) that up to a date one month before the date of the application, a continuous period of five years or longer had elapsed during which the trade mark was registered and during which there was no bona fide use thereof in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being:
Provided that, except where the applicant has been permitted under sub- section (3) of section 12 to register an identical or nearly resembling trade mark in respect of the goods in question or where the tribunal is of opinion that he might properly be permitted so to register such a trade mark, the tribunal may refuse an application under clause (a) or clause (b) in relation to any goods, if it is shown that there has been, before the relevant date or during the relevant period, as the case may be, bona fide use of the trade mark by any proprietor thereof for the time being in relation to goods of the same description, being goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
(2) Where in relation to any goods in respect of which a trade mark is registered—
(a) the circumstances referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) are shown to exist so far as regards non- use of the trade mark in
Page 9
9
relation to goods to be sold, or otherwise traded in, in a particular place in India (otherwise than for export from India), or in relation to goods to be exported to a particular market outside India; and
(b) a person has been permitted under sub- section (3) of section 12 to register an identical or nearly resembling trade mark in respect of those goods under a registration extending to use in relation to goods under to be sold, or otherwise traded in, or in relation to goods to be so exported, or the tribunal is of opinion that he might properly be permitted so to register such a trade mark;
on application by that person in the prescribed manner to a High Court or to the Registrar, the tribunal may impose on the registration of the first- mentioned trade mark such limitations as it thinks proper for securing that registration shall cease to extend to such use.”
11. Section 46(1)(b) provides that that up to a date one
month before the date of the application, a continuous
period of five years or longer had elapsed during which
the trademark was registered and during which there was
no bonafide use thereof in relation to the goods for which
it was registered by the proprietor for the registered
trademark. Onus to prove non-use rests upon the
applicant who has filed the application for rectification.
Page 10
10
Of course, it is sufficient that the applicant who has filed
the application for rectification to give prima facie
evidence for non-use of the mark during the relevant
period of five years from the date of one month before the
date of the application for rectification. Once it is prima
facie shown, then the onus shifts to the registered
proprietor to prove the use of the trademark during the
relevant period.
12. The scope of the above-mentioned provision came up
for consideration before this Court in Hardie Trading
Ltd. & Anr. V. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd.
[(2003) 11 SCC 92], wherein in the Court has taken the
view that where the evidence on record does not show
absolute non-user of trademark during the period of 5
years and one month prior to the application for
rectification and it was not economically possible for the
owner of the registered trademark to put its goods
manufactured abroad immediately due to restrictions
imposed by the Import Trade Control Policies for the
relevant years, the application for rectification could not
Page 11
11
be allowed on the ground of alleged non-user as the case
is covered under the term “special circumstances”.
Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court
in Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. v. T.I. Raleigh
Industries Pvt. Ltd. [(1996) 9 SCC 430], wherein this
Court held that the initial burden is on the applicant
seeking rectification to show that the registered owner has
no intention to use the trademark during the relevant
period and, in fact, has failed to do so.
13. We find, in this case on facts, the Assistant Registrar
of Trademarks, after perusing the various documents
found that there was no non-user of the trademark
‘KOHINOOR” in respect of rice in class 30 for five years
and one month prior to the date of the rectification
application. That finding is purely a question of fact,
which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge as well as
the Division Bench. The Division Bench has also found no
error in the inclusion of another District also for selling the
rice and later extending the benefit of the trademark to
the respondents to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh.
Page 12
12
Cogent reasons have been stated for extending the
trademark so far as the respondents are concerned in the
whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was pointed out
that restricting the trademark to few cities would create
lot of complications and litigations as to the exact
boundary of a particular city or District. It will also be
impossible for the respondents to ensure that its products
are not sold to retailers outside the six cities. Putting
geographical restrictions was rightly held to be unjust. In
our view, reasons stated above cannot be said to be
arbitrary or perverse calling for interference by this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
14. In the circumstances, we find no error in the order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Appeals
lack merit and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
…..………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………….J. (A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi,
Page 13
13
November 22, 2013.