Background of the Case:
The case before us is Bhupinder Jain vs Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in Chennai Circuit Bench at New Delhi. The case involves a dispute over the trademark "UDAN PARI" and other related marks used in the processing and marketing of rice. The appellant, Bhupinder Jain, and his family are engaged in this business. The respondent is Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Issue of the Case:
The primary issue in the case revolves around the assignment and transfer of the trademark "UDAN PARI" from Bhupinder Jain trading as M/s Mahaveer Rice Traders to M/s Jain Riceland Pvt. Ltd., a company in which Bhupinder Jain is a director. The appellant sought to amend the name and address in the appeal documents to reflect this change. Additionally, there was a discrepancy in the publication of the trademark in the Trade Marks Journal, where the impugned mark was applied for as a label mark but was erroneously published as a word mark.

Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant contended that the assignment of the trademark was a bona fide transaction and that the amendment to the name and address was necessary to reflect the current ownership. They also argued that the error in the publication of the trademark as a word mark instead of a label mark required rectification to avoid future litigation.

The respondent objected to the appellant's miscellaneous petitions, arguing that they were an attempt to delay the final adjudication of the matter and to raise new issues at a belated stage. They also challenged the validity of the assignment deed, claiming it was a sham document and that the appellant's main application had already been dismissed by the Registrar.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:
The IPAB had to consider several issues, including the validity of the assignment of the trademark, the propriety of the miscellaneous petitions filed by the appellant, and the error in the publication of the trademark in the journal.

Reason and Final Decision:
The IPAB found that the error in publishing the trademark as a word mark instead of a label mark was a serious issue that needed to be rectified. They ruled that the impugned mark must be re-advertised to avoid potential litigation. Regarding the assignment of the trademark, the Board allowed the amendment to reflect the new ownership but expressed concerns about the appellant's conduct, given the multiple miscellaneous petitions filed and the delay in approaching the Board for amendments.

In conclusion, the IPAB's decision highlights the importance of accurate publication of trademarks and the need for parties to act in good faith and with due diligence in legal proceedings.

Case Citation: Bhupinder Jain Versus Sachdeva & Sons: 2013 (54) PTC 204 (IPAB):

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539