The registrar's decision allowed the Swiss company to proceed with using the Jaguar name in watches and parts thereof, excluding clocks. The registrar stated Jaguar Cars had not filed any evidence of use of the trade mark 'Jaguar' for watches and there was no evidence of use and advertisement of Jaguar in India. Brochure and promotional materials of the company do not provide evidence that they have any manufacturing facilities in India.
Besides, Jaguar was a common dictionary word, both companies mark co-exists in over 30 countries, the registrar noted.
Reacting to this, the car-maker said, "....clearly proves the bias of the registrar and is contrary to the established principles of the trade marks law. This is contrary to the settled position in law that the use of a mark may inure to the proprietor even though goods are manufactured through permitted user, common-law licensees, contact manufacturers etc".
The company also noted that it succeeded in canceling the registration of trademark Jaguar by the Swiss company in France, Singapore, etc.
Criticising the observations of deputy registrar, the IPAB said, "The registrar has concocted a new and novel test of manufacturing facilities in India to draw an inference of non-use. This is a unheard of theory in trade marks jurisprudence and almost amounts to a trade barrier not envisaged by law."
"We conclude that the registrar's order is full of infirmities and exhibits pronounced bias necessitating the Board to step in to right a terrible wrong", said S Usha, vice chairman, and V Ravi, technical member of IPAB.
IPAB recommends scrapping Haldiram Kolkata trademark
The IPAB has asked the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark of Kolkata-based Haldiram Bhujiawala, the sweets and snacks brand.
The IPAB order was on a dispute between the family members of, Ganga Bishan, who had adopted the trademark in 1941. The IPAB ruled in favour of Delhi-based Haldiram (India) Pvt Ltd, which filed a petition against the Kolkata firm. The board comprising S Usha, vice chairman and V Ravi, technical member (Trademarks) observed that Lal was not the inventor of the trademark as claimed by the respondents (the Kolkata firm).
"We, therefore, are of the view that the trademark has to be removed from the register,"said the order.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)