Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the registered trade marks were liable to be removed from the register for non-use under Section 46 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and whether use by an unregistered but authorised user could be treated as bona fide use by the proprietor for that purpose.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats permitted use by a registered user as use by the proprietor under Section 48(2). The Court further held that, on the facts, there had been a real and continuing trade connection between the proprietor and the user of the mark, and the use of the mark in passing off the bicycles manufactured under the proprietor's mark constituted bona fide use for the purpose of Section 46(1)(b). The exception under Section 46(3) was held not to be attracted. The Court also affirmed that the power to remove a mark is discretionary and that commercial and public interest may be considered in deciding whether to strike the mark off.
Conclusion: The application for rectification was not made out, and the refusal to remove the trade marks from the register was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of removal of a trade mark for non-use, bona fide use may be established by authorised use where there is a genuine trade connection with the registered proprietor, and the rectification power remains discretionary unless the statutory conditions for removal are clearly satisfied.