M/S V-GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.

Delhi High Court · 12 Jan 2023 · 2023:DHC:137
C. Hari Shankar
C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2022
2023:DHC:137
intellectual_property other Procedural

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court corrected clerical errors in its trademark opposition judgment, affirming that ambiguities in opposition provisions benefit the opponent.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000389 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2022 & I.A. 179/2023 M/S V-GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Babna Das, Mr. Mukul Kumar and Mr. Vizzy George, Advs.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.. Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar
Mishra, Mr. Gagar Mehlawat, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advs. for R-1
Mr. Jithin M. George and Mr. Udit Tewari, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR O R D E R 12.01.2023
JUDGMENT

1. The judgment in this case was pronounced on 6th January 2023. Ms Bhabna Das had mentioned this matter yesterday submitting that there were certain clerical errors in the order, which were required to be corrected. She was permitted to mention the matter this morning.

2. Both learned Counsel are present and agreeable ad idem to the corrections.

3. There are two errors, which are required to be corrected. The first is that the mark forming subject matter of controversy in the present case has been noted, in paras 1 and 13 of the judgment, as “LIVGUARD ZING” instead of “LIVGUARD PRIMO'”. Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000389 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2022

4. The said paras shall stand duly corrected accordingly.

5. The second error to which my attention has been drawn to is the word “won’t” as it figures in para 19 of the judgment. Learned Counsel ad idem submit that the word “won’t” requires to be substituted with “would”.

6. As such, para 19 of the judgment would read thus:

“19. Given the nature of these provisions and the fact that they affect the valuable right vested in an opponent who seeks to oppose the registration of a trade mark, I am of the considered opinion that, in the facts of the present case, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the ambiguity inherent in this provision.”

7. The judgment dated 6th January 2023 stands corrected accordingly. This order shall be read as a corrigendum to the judgment dated 6th January 2023.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 12, 2023