)
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has issued an order to remove the trade mark "Crystal Glamour" owned by Austrian crystal jewellery and fashion accessories major Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft, under class 25 of the trade mark classification for clothes, from the registry. The order was on a recetification application filed by Tirupur-based apparel manufacturer Crystal Knitwear, which owns a trade mark Crystal.
The Original Rectification Application was filed by Crystal Knitwear for removal of the trade mark “Crystal Glamour” registered under No 1134456 in class 25 in respect of clothing, footwear, headgear under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
IPAB Vice-Chairman S Usha and Technical Member (Trade Marks) Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, in the order said, "... the application is ordered with a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove/cancel the trade mark “Crystal Glamour” registered under No.1134456 in Class 25."
Crystal Knitwear firm claimed that it has adopted the trade mark Crystal in 1971 and has spent huge amount in promoting and popularising the trade mark. It alleged that having full knowledge of the use of trade mark Crystal by the company, Swarovski applied for and obtained the registration of the trade mark Crystal Glamour, under Class 25.
It also argued, among several points, that the trade mark under question was not used for a period of five years or long in respect of the goods for which the mark was registered by the Austrian firm.
Swarovskim during the course of hearing, informed the Board through a letter that the said registration of trade mark had lapsed long ago and the proprietor had no interest in reviving the registration.
The counsel appeared for the company infromed the Board, "In the circumstances, there is no purpose in attending the hearing and the Registered Proprietor has duly instructed us to make no effort to take any action in the lapsed registration. You are most respectfully requested to allow the aforesaid petition to abate under appropriate direction to the Ld. Registrar of Trade Marks."
"In view of the above statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondents herein before the Trade Mark Registry, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the case," said the IPAB in its order.
