Infringement of trade-mark
(From previous issue) :
(L) †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ mv`„k¨c~Y¨ Ges †h cb¨ ev †mevq Dnvi e¨envi Kiv nq
Zvnv wbewÜZ cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ Awfbœ ev
(M) wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ Awfbœ Ges †h cY¨ ev †mevq Dnvi e¨envi Kiv nq, Zvnv wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ Awfbœ, Ges hvnvi d‡j RbMb weåvšÍ nB‡Z cv‡i GBiæc AvksKv _v‡K A_ev wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ Abyiæc gv‡K©i m¤úK© iwnqv‡Q g‡g© fzj avibvi m”wó K‡i|
(3) †Kvb e¨w³ KZ©©…K wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© jwoNZ nBqv‡Q ewjq MY¨ nB‡e, hw` D³ e¨w³, wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, wbR e¨emvq Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib , hvnv-
(K) †Kvb wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ Awfbœ ev mv`”k¨cyY¨ nq;
(L) Ab¨ †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î e¨eüZ nq Ges †h cY¨ ev †mevi Rb¨ D³ gvK© wbewÜZ nBqv‡Q Dnvi mwnZ mv`”k¨c~Y© nq; Ges
(M) wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© wnmv‡e evsjcv‡`‡k mycwiwPwZ Ges A‰ea myweav MÖn‡bi D‡Ï‡k¨, h_v_© KviY e¨ZxZ, Dnv e¨env‡ii gva¨‡g wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i ¯^vZš¿¨ ev mybv‡gi ÿwZ Kiv nq|
(4) GB avivi D‡Ïk¨ c~ibK‡í, †Kvb e¨w³ KZ…©K wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i e¨envi, A_©-
(K) c‡b¨i Mv‡q ev †gvo‡K gvK© mshy³ Kiv
(L) gvK© e¨envi Kwiq †Kvb cY¨ cÖ`k©b, weµ‡qi wbwgË evRv‡i mieivn, gv‡K©i Aaxb †mev cÖ`v‡bi cÖ¯Íve Kiv ev gRy` ivLv;
(M) gvK© m¤^wjZ cY¨ Avg`vwb ev ißvwb Kiv;
(N) evwYwR¨K †jb‡`b msµvšÍ KvMRcÎ ev weÁvc‡b †Kvb gvK© e¨envi Kiv|
(5) hw` †Kvb e¨vw³ wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev e¨enviKvix ev e¨env‡ii AwaKvicÖvß e¨vw³ KZ©”K ÿgZvcÖvß bv nBqv ev Dnvi e¨envi ˆea bq g‡g© ÁvZ nBqv ev wek¦vm Kwievi Kvib _vKv m‡Z¡I Zvnvi cY¨ ev †mevi Mv‡q, †gvo‡K, evwYwR¨K KvMRcÎ ev cY¨ ev †mevi weÁvc‡b †Kvb wbewÜ gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, Zvnv nB‡j wZwb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© joNb Kwiqv‡Qb ewjqv MY¨ nB‡eb|
(6) GB avivi ‡Kvb weavb †Kvb wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev e¨enviKvix ev e¨env‡ii AwaKvicÖvß e¨w³‡K ev Zvnv‡`i cY¨ ev †mev mbv³ Kwievi D‡Ïk¨ †Kvb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© e¨env‡ii †ÿ‡Î, †Kvb evav m”wó K‡i g‡g© e¨vL¨v Kiv hvB‡e bv, Z‡e D³iæc e¨envi wkí ev e¨emv msµvšÍ wel‡q Amrfv‡e †Kvb †UªWgv‡K©i ¯^vZš¿ ev mybvg‡K ÿzbœ Kwi‡j, wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i joNb nBqv‡Q ewjqv MY¨ nB‡e|
(7) †Kvb e¨w³ mycwiwPZ gv‡K©i wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, wb¤^ewY©Z e¨env‡ii gva¨‡g D³iæc mycwiwPZ gvK© joNb Kwiqv‡Qb ewjq Mb¨ nB‡eb, hw` wZwb-
(K) †Kvb cb¨ †mevi wel‡q Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, hvnv †Kvb wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gv‡K©i cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ Awfbœ ev mv`”k¨c~Y©; ev
(L) cY¨ ev †mevi wel‡h Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, hv_v †Kvb wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gv‡K©i mwnZ Awfbœ ev mv`”k¨c~Y© bv nIqv m‡Ë¡I, cY¨ ev †mevi wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gvK©wUi gvwj‡Ki mwnZ m¤úK© iwnqv‡Q g‡g© Bw½Z cÖ`vb K‡i Ges hvnvidjkÖæwZ D³ wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gvK©wUi gvwj‡Ki ¯^v_© ÿzbœ nq ewjq cÖZxqgvb nq|
e¨vL¨v-
GB avivi D‡Ïk¨ cyiYK‡í, mycwiwPZ gvK© A_© aviv 10 G ewY©Z mycwiwPZ gvK©|
(8) wbeÜb ewn‡Z wbewÜZ †Kvb †UªWgvK© joN‡bi Rb¨ `v‡qiK…Z gvgjvq weev`x Av`vjZ‡K GB g‡g© mš’wó Kwi‡Z cv‡ib †h,
(K) D³ gv‡K©i e¨envi Øviv RbM‡bi weåvšÍ ev cÖZvwiZ nBevi m¤¢vebv bvB ev
(L) D³iæc gv‡K©i †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ wbewÜZ gv‡K©i ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev e¨enviKvixiv e¨emvwqK m¤úK© iwnqv‡Q g‡g© Bw½Z cÖ`vb K‡i bv, Zvnv nB‡j, Av`vjZ D³ gvgjvq ev`xi AbyKz‡j †Kvb wb‡lavÄv ev Ab¨ †Kv cÖKvi cÖwZKvi gÄyi Kwi‡e bv|
17. Upon reading together the aforesaid provisions of section 42( 1), section 71 and section 26(4) it transpires that although these provisions did not mention about the user of registered trade mark within the territory of Bangladesh yet the scheme and object of trade mark Act 2009 indicates that unless the registered trade mark is used within the territory of Bangladesh for the purpose of business by affixing the mark on the body of the product and marketing the same within the territory of Bangladesh, then the registered trade mark cannot be treated to have been in use within the meaning of section 71 of the trade mark Act 2009.
The question of non-user of Trade Mark, as has been provided in section 42 of the trade mark Act 2009, for the purpose of removal of a registered trade mark from the register of trade marks is ad circumstances which ought to be inferred from the attending circumstances as available before the court.
The petitioner asserted that there is no product available with the mark WvjWv (DALDA) within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangladesh and, as such, the mark is not in active use by the owner of the said registered trade mark and that fact is established by the fact of non-filing of any suit for infringement of trade mark against the petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner is using the Commercial mark †dªk WvjWv(Fress Dalda) since 1995. Annexure-E, which is a statement or sales figure, shows that the petitioner since 2006 up to 2011 obtained a sale proceed of its product Banaspati with commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) at an amount of 6,596,255,427 and paid an amount Taka 860,381, 140 in VAT which proves that the petitioner is using the mark in the Bangladeshi market, at least from the year 2006 widely as it has advertised the: product by expending Taka 32,981,274 as claimed by the petitioner.
But no such product under the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) is available in the market of Bangladesh and the said evidence may be gathered from the fact that no infringement suit has ever been filed against the petitioner who is using the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) for its similar product.
18. There fore, this court is satisfied by inference’ that the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) under the Trade Mark No. 7685 and 7582 has not been in use for last five years within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangladesh, although the proprietor of the said Trade Mark has obtained a renewal of the said trade mark has obtained a renewal of the said trade mark for fifteen years earlier, but did not obtain any renewal of the trade mark Nos. 7685 and 7682 even after its expiry of 28-3-2002 causing the mark WvjWv (DALDA) of no legal implication or right to exit in the register of trade mark.
19. Further the commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) has quite distinct dissimilarity with the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) which has no scope to deceive the public at large for the WvjWv (DALDA) for which the petitioner has independent right to get the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) registered as trade mark.
20. In view of the above reasoning and grounds this court finds that the register of Trade mark, the respondent No.2, was not reasonable to impliedly refuse the petitioner to register its mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) as trade mark under the provision trade mark Act 2009.
21. Therefore, this court finds that the instant applications has merit, and accordingly the application is required to be allowed.
22. In the result the application is allowed.
The respondent No. 2 is directed to remove the Trade Mark WvjWv (DALDA) being Registration No. 7654 and 7682, both in class-29, for the product Banaspati or vegetable Ghee, from the register of trade mark on the ground of non-user under the Provisions of section 42 of the trade mark Act 2009.
However, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Concluded)
(L) †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ mv`„k¨c~Y¨ Ges †h cb¨ ev †mevq Dnvi e¨envi Kiv nq
Zvnv wbewÜZ cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ Awfbœ ev
(M) wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ Awfbœ Ges †h cY¨ ev †mevq Dnvi e¨envi Kiv nq, Zvnv wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ Awfbœ, Ges hvnvi d‡j RbMb weåvšÍ nB‡Z cv‡i GBiæc AvksKv _v‡K A_ev wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ Abyiæc gv‡K©i m¤úK© iwnqv‡Q g‡g© fzj avibvi m”wó K‡i|
(3) †Kvb e¨w³ KZ©©…K wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© jwoNZ nBqv‡Q ewjq MY¨ nB‡e, hw` D³ e¨w³, wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, wbR e¨emvq Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib , hvnv-
(K) †Kvb wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i mwnZ Awfbœ ev mv`”k¨cyY¨ nq;
(L) Ab¨ †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î e¨eüZ nq Ges †h cY¨ ev †mevi Rb¨ D³ gvK© wbewÜZ nBqv‡Q Dnvi mwnZ mv`”k¨c~Y© nq; Ges
(M) wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© wnmv‡e evsjcv‡`‡k mycwiwPwZ Ges A‰ea myweav MÖn‡bi D‡Ï‡k¨, h_v_© KviY e¨ZxZ, Dnv e¨env‡ii gva¨‡g wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i ¯^vZš¿¨ ev mybv‡gi ÿwZ Kiv nq|
(4) GB avivi D‡Ïk¨ c~ibK‡í, †Kvb e¨w³ KZ…©K wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i e¨envi, A_©-
(K) c‡b¨i Mv‡q ev †gvo‡K gvK© mshy³ Kiv
(L) gvK© e¨envi Kwiq †Kvb cY¨ cÖ`k©b, weµ‡qi wbwgË evRv‡i mieivn, gv‡K©i Aaxb †mev cÖ`v‡bi cÖ¯Íve Kiv ev gRy` ivLv;
(M) gvK© m¤^wjZ cY¨ Avg`vwb ev ißvwb Kiv;
(N) evwYwR¨K †jb‡`b msµvšÍ KvMRcÎ ev weÁvc‡b †Kvb gvK© e¨envi Kiv|
(5) hw` †Kvb e¨vw³ wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev e¨enviKvix ev e¨env‡ii AwaKvicÖvß e¨vw³ KZ©”K ÿgZvcÖvß bv nBqv ev Dnvi e¨envi ˆea bq g‡g© ÁvZ nBqv ev wek¦vm Kwievi Kvib _vKv m‡Z¡I Zvnvi cY¨ ev †mevi Mv‡q, †gvo‡K, evwYwR¨K KvMRcÎ ev cY¨ ev †mevi weÁvc‡b †Kvb wbewÜ gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, Zvnv nB‡j wZwb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© joNb Kwiqv‡Qb ewjqv MY¨ nB‡eb|
(6) GB avivi ‡Kvb weavb †Kvb wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev e¨enviKvix ev e¨env‡ii AwaKvicÖvß e¨w³‡K ev Zvnv‡`i cY¨ ev †mev mbv³ Kwievi D‡Ïk¨ †Kvb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© e¨env‡ii †ÿ‡Î, †Kvb evav m”wó K‡i g‡g© e¨vL¨v Kiv hvB‡e bv, Z‡e D³iæc e¨envi wkí ev e¨emv msµvšÍ wel‡q Amrfv‡e †Kvb †UªWgv‡K©i ¯^vZš¿ ev mybvg‡K ÿzbœ Kwi‡j, wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i joNb nBqv‡Q ewjqv MY¨ nB‡e|
(7) †Kvb e¨w³ mycwiwPZ gv‡K©i wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, wb¤^ewY©Z e¨env‡ii gva¨‡g D³iæc mycwiwPZ gvK© joNb Kwiqv‡Qb ewjq Mb¨ nB‡eb, hw` wZwb-
(K) †Kvb cb¨ †mevi wel‡q Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, hvnv †Kvb wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gv‡K©i cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ Awfbœ ev mv`”k¨c~Y©; ev
(L) cY¨ ev †mevi wel‡h Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, hv_v †Kvb wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gv‡K©i mwnZ Awfbœ ev mv`”k¨c~Y© bv nIqv m‡Ë¡I, cY¨ ev †mevi wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gvK©wUi gvwj‡Ki mwnZ m¤úK© iwnqv‡Q g‡g© Bw½Z cÖ`vb K‡i Ges hvnvidjkÖæwZ D³ wbewÜZ mycwiwPZ gvK©wUi gvwj‡Ki ¯^v_© ÿzbœ nq ewjq cÖZxqgvb nq|
e¨vL¨v-
GB avivi D‡Ïk¨ cyiYK‡í, mycwiwPZ gvK© A_© aviv 10 G ewY©Z mycwiwPZ gvK©|
(8) wbeÜb ewn‡Z wbewÜZ †Kvb †UªWgvK© joN‡bi Rb¨ `v‡qiK…Z gvgjvq weev`x Av`vjZ‡K GB g‡g© mš’wó Kwi‡Z cv‡ib †h,
(K) D³ gv‡K©i e¨envi Øviv RbM‡bi weåvšÍ ev cÖZvwiZ nBevi m¤¢vebv bvB ev
(L) D³iæc gv‡K©i †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ wbewÜZ gv‡K©i ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev e¨enviKvixiv e¨emvwqK m¤úK© iwnqv‡Q g‡g© Bw½Z cÖ`vb K‡i bv, Zvnv nB‡j, Av`vjZ D³ gvgjvq ev`xi AbyKz‡j †Kvb wb‡lavÄv ev Ab¨ †Kv cÖKvi cÖwZKvi gÄyi Kwi‡e bv|
17. Upon reading together the aforesaid provisions of section 42( 1), section 71 and section 26(4) it transpires that although these provisions did not mention about the user of registered trade mark within the territory of Bangladesh yet the scheme and object of trade mark Act 2009 indicates that unless the registered trade mark is used within the territory of Bangladesh for the purpose of business by affixing the mark on the body of the product and marketing the same within the territory of Bangladesh, then the registered trade mark cannot be treated to have been in use within the meaning of section 71 of the trade mark Act 2009.
The question of non-user of Trade Mark, as has been provided in section 42 of the trade mark Act 2009, for the purpose of removal of a registered trade mark from the register of trade marks is ad circumstances which ought to be inferred from the attending circumstances as available before the court.
The petitioner asserted that there is no product available with the mark WvjWv (DALDA) within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangladesh and, as such, the mark is not in active use by the owner of the said registered trade mark and that fact is established by the fact of non-filing of any suit for infringement of trade mark against the petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner is using the Commercial mark †dªk WvjWv(Fress Dalda) since 1995. Annexure-E, which is a statement or sales figure, shows that the petitioner since 2006 up to 2011 obtained a sale proceed of its product Banaspati with commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) at an amount of 6,596,255,427 and paid an amount Taka 860,381, 140 in VAT which proves that the petitioner is using the mark in the Bangladeshi market, at least from the year 2006 widely as it has advertised the: product by expending Taka 32,981,274 as claimed by the petitioner.
But no such product under the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) is available in the market of Bangladesh and the said evidence may be gathered from the fact that no infringement suit has ever been filed against the petitioner who is using the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) for its similar product.
18. There fore, this court is satisfied by inference’ that the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) under the Trade Mark No. 7685 and 7582 has not been in use for last five years within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangladesh, although the proprietor of the said Trade Mark has obtained a renewal of the said trade mark has obtained a renewal of the said trade mark for fifteen years earlier, but did not obtain any renewal of the trade mark Nos. 7685 and 7682 even after its expiry of 28-3-2002 causing the mark WvjWv (DALDA) of no legal implication or right to exit in the register of trade mark.
19. Further the commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) has quite distinct dissimilarity with the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) which has no scope to deceive the public at large for the WvjWv (DALDA) for which the petitioner has independent right to get the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) registered as trade mark.
20. In view of the above reasoning and grounds this court finds that the register of Trade mark, the respondent No.2, was not reasonable to impliedly refuse the petitioner to register its mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) as trade mark under the provision trade mark Act 2009.
21. Therefore, this court finds that the instant applications has merit, and accordingly the application is required to be allowed.
22. In the result the application is allowed.
The respondent No. 2 is directed to remove the Trade Mark WvjWv (DALDA) being Registration No. 7654 and 7682, both in class-29, for the product Banaspati or vegetable Ghee, from the register of trade mark on the ground of non-user under the Provisions of section 42 of the trade mark Act 2009.
However, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Concluded)