Trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE' registration invalidated under Trade Marks Act

The court upheld the Division Bench's decision that the registration of the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE' was invalid due to a violation of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court affirmed the Registrar's jurisdiction and suo motu powers under Section 57(4) while finding Section 125 inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the trademark registration of 'BLENDERS PRIDE'.
2. Jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
3. Applicability of Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
4. Interpretation of Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Trademark Registration of 'BLENDERS PRIDE':
The respondent No.4, a U.S. corporation and ultimate subsidiary of Pernord Ricard S.A., claimed to have coined and adopted the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE' in 1973. The trademark was extensively marketed and sold worldwide, including India. Respondent No.4 applied for registration of the trademark in various countries, including India. The appellant's application for registration of an identical trademark was advertised, and respondent No.4 filed for an extension to oppose this registration. Despite the opposition, the trademark was erroneously registered to the appellant. The Registrar later issued a show cause notice for rectification, acknowledging the error. The Appellate Board and Division Bench found the registration invalid as it violated Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because the opposition period had not expired when the registration was granted.

2. Jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Marks:
The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued by the Registrar from Bombay was without jurisdiction since the application and subsequent proceedings were in Delhi. The court clarified that under Section 57(4), the suo motu power can only be exercised by the Registrar himself, whose registered office is in Bombay. Therefore, the show cause notice was within jurisdiction.

3. Applicability of Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The appellant contended that Section 125 should apply, barring the Registrar from rectification proceedings since a written statement questioning the trademark's validity was filed in an infringement suit. The court clarified that Section 125 applies only to applications for rectification by parties to the suit. Since the rectification application was not made by any party defendant in the infringement suit, Section 125 did not apply. The court emphasized that Section 125 pertains to applications for rectification of the register, not to the Registrar's suo motu powers under Section 57(4).

4. Interpretation of Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The court explained that Section 57(4) allows the Registrar to rectify the register to maintain its purity, independent of any application for rectification. This power is essential to prevent errors from remaining on the register, which could occur if a defendant in an infringement suit does not pursue rectification. The court upheld the Division Bench's interpretation that Section 125 does not bar the Registrar's suo motu powers under Section 57(4).

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Division Bench's judgment that the registration of the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE' was invalid and the register should be rectified. The Registrar's jurisdiction and suo motu powers under Section 57(4) were upheld, and Section 125 was found inapplicable to the case at hand. No costs were awarded.

---