Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945 MFA (COPYRIGHT) NO. 98 OF 2021 (FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE SENIOR EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS DATED 24TH JUNE 2021 UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999) APPELLANT:
M/s.BIPHA DRUG LABORATORIES PVT. LTD XIII/804 D, PALLIPURATHU KAVU JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, INDIA - 686 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS P.ABRAHAM CHERIAN MUNSIN M.M AMANDA RUTH RESPONDENTS:
1 REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS BUILDING, GST ROAD, GUNDY, CHENNAI - 600 032.
2 SENIOR EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS BUILDING, GST ROAD, GUNDY, CHENNAI - 600 032.
BY ADVS.
SMT.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., CGC SRI.MANU.S, DSGI THIS MFA (COPYRIGHT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA (COPYRIGHT) NO. 98 OF 2021 2 T.R. RAVI, J.
-------------------------------------------- MFA (COPYRIGHT) NO.98 of 2021 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February 2024 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24.06.2021 in application No.4235812 for registration of trademark SUMVEDA filed by the appellant. The appellant had made applications under class 44 and class 3 by means of two applications for the same name SUMVEDA. The application under class 3 was with respect to bath herbs, soaps, essential oils etc. and the application under class 44 was with respect to medical and spa services. The application under class 3 has been allowed on 20.09.2020 but the application under class 44 has been rejected on a reason that the mark proposed is an ancient Vedic Sanskrit text and part of the scriptures of Hinduism over which no person can claim any exclusive right. The reasoning is apparently wrong. The word does not refer to a Sanskrit text at all. Moreover, registration has been granted under class 3 for the same
MFA (COPYRIGHT) NO. 98 OF 2021 3 name for different products of the appellant.
In the above circumstances, I find that the reasoning in Annexure V order is wrong. The same is set aside and the case is remanded back for fresh consideration by the respondents. The respondents shall consider and pass fresh orders after hearing the appellant on application No.4235812 at the earliest, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with due regard to the fact that the application under class 3 has been allowed.
Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE LEK
MFA (COPYRIGHT) NO. 98 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF MFA (COPYRIGHT) 98/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIGITALIZED CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 20/09/2020 FOR TRADEMARK NO.4235811 SUMVEDA IN CLASS 3 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.4235812 DATED 16/07/2019 FOR REGISTRATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK SUMVEDA IN CLASS 44 FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN FORM TMA.
Annexure III A TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION REPORT DATED 08/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NO.4235812.
Annexure IV A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/08/2019 TO EXAMINATION REPORT FILED BY THE APPELLANT.
Annexure V A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/06/2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO.4235812.