HIGH COURT DIVISION :
(Statutory Original Jurisdiction)
AFM Abdur Rahman J
Managing Director, Baghdad
Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd ……………………. Petitioner
vs
Van Den Heghs and others ….
……………..Respondent
Judgement
January 11th
2012
Trade Mark Act (XIX of 2009)
Section 42
Provisions did not mention about the user of registered trade mark within the territory of Bangladesh yet the scheme and object of Act 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 Act. …………..(17)
Moazzam Hussain, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
Judgment
AFM Abdur Rahman J: This application, under section 42 of the Trade Mark Act 2009, praying for a direction for removal of the registered , Trade Mark No. 7685 and 7682, both in class No. 29 having Bengali inscription ……. (DALDA) from the register of Trade Mark, has been heard on contest and now disposed off by this judgment.
2. The petitioner asserts that it produces vegetable Ghee for quite a long time in its esteemed industry and adopted a Trade name consisting of the word †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) and applied for registration of the said trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) as trade mark before the Registrar of trade mark, the respondent No.2, under application No. 49105 in class-29, on 20th November, 1996 which was published in Trade Mark Journal No. 187 in the month of February 1998 as advertised.
3. But as the registrar of Trade Mark did not respond to the next step of the application within a reasonable period, the petitioner filed a fresh application being No. 142233 on 26 April 2011, upon which the examiner of the trade mark registry certified that the registered Trade Mark No. 7685 and 7682 both in class-29 contained similar Trade name in Bengali word WvjWv (DALDA) and, as such, the petitioners application cannot be entertained. The petitioner, upon enquiry, found that the Proprietor of that mark
WvjWv (DALDA), the respondent No.1, obtained registration of the said trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) in the year 1958 in c1ass-29 under No. 7685 and 7682 and obtained renewal of the same on 21-12-1976 and later on 21-4-2004 for consecutive 15 years from 1995 which having been expired and the said Trade Mark not being in use for a period of five years before one month of the tiling of the petitioner’s application, the trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) registered under No. 7685 and 7682 in class 29 has no use and, as such, required to be removed from the register of trade mark under the Provisions of section 42 (ka) and (kha) of the Trade Mark Act 2009 in order to facilitate the petitioners application registered.
4. The petitioner further asserts that due to superior quality of Banaspati (vegetable Ghee) marketed under his brand †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) the petitioner received popularity in the market due to its reputes and wide advertisement through various media and enough sale promotion measures were undertaken with the result that the Banaspati marketed under the trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) become distinctive of the product. As a matter of fact the Banaspati manufactured by the petitioner under the brand †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) is in great demand in the country as the consumer had a fascination for the Banaspati marketed under the Trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) and, as such, the petitioner lead the market by paying huge amount in taxes and in VAT to the government. Since the petitioner’s mark has not been admitted by the registrar of the trade mark for the reason due to the earlier registration of the trade mark – WvjWv (DALDA) under the registered No. 7685 and 7682 in Class-29, the same is required to be removed on the ground of non-user in order to facilitate the petitioners trade mark to be registered under the same class for which the registrar of the Trade Mark was duty bound to remove the said mark WvjWv (Dalda) from the registrar and in his failure the petitioner preferred the instant application before this court.
5. The notice of the instant proceeding was duly served upon the respondent No.1 VAN DEN BEGHS & JUGENS LIMITED by serving the same on the attorney of law for the respondent No. I, Remphay and Sons Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh, who obtained the renewal of the Trade Mark Nos. 7685 and 7682, both through manual and postal process.
But none appeared to oppose the application.
6. The learned Advocate Mr. Mohd. Moazzam Hussain. appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner is using the trade name/commercial mark †d”k WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) for his product of Banaspati marketed in Bangladesh since long for which it became a distinctive trade mark and the impugned mark WvjWv (DALDA) being distinctively dissimilar with the petitioners mark †dªk WvjWvv (FRESH DALDA), the petitioner is entitled to obtain registration of his commercial mark as trade mark. But the registrar of Trade Mark most illegally did not allow the registration of the petitioners mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) on the ground that the impugned Trade Mark. WvjWv (Dalda) earlier registered under No. 7685 and 7682 in the name of respondent No.1 is similar to petitioners mark which being misconceived decision, in as much as that the petitioners mark FRESH DALDA has distinctive dissimilarities with the registered mark WvjWv (Dalda), the petitioner is entitled to get the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) registered upon removing the impugned trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) from the registrar of Trade mark.
7. The learned Advocate Mr. Mohd. Moazzam Hussain, argued that the petitioner is an aggrieved person against the existence or the registered Trade Mark WvjWv (Dalda) in the registrar of trade mark which being expired and not being in use for more than five years within the territory of Bangladesh, most illegally caused non-acceptance of the petitioner application for registration of the Trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) as trade mark., but as no such product has been appearing in the markets within the territory of Bangladesh for long, the registered trade mark. WvjWv (DALDA) is liable to be removed from the register for its non-user for more than five years and the petitioner mark is entitled to be registered as a distinctive trade mark as it become such due to the wide marketing of the product Banaspati under the commercial name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA). The learned Advocate Mr Mohammad Moazzem Hossain contends that the provisions of section 26(4) of the Trade Mark Act 2009 provides the meaning of use of registered trade mark indicating that not only the trade mark itself must be used within the territory of Bangladesh but also the product having the registered trade mark inscribed must be marketed within the territory of Bangladesh.
8. The learned Advocate Mr Mohd Moazzam Hussain further argued that the nonuser of the Trade Mark WvjWv (Dalda) with the territory of Bangladesh appears from the fact that the proprietor of the same is not active in business with the product WvjWv (DALDA) within the territory of Bangladesh which is proved from the fact that no infringement suit has been filed against the petitioner although the petitioner has been in continuous use of the commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) from the year 1995 within the territory of Bangladesh for the same product Banaspati and therefore the petitioner is entitled to obtain the registration of his mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) under the application as filed before the registrar of trade mark upon removing the registrar trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) in the same class.
9. We have heard the learned Advocate, perused the materials on record.
The pertinent question to be addressed by this court is that whether the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) is liable to be removed from the register of trade mark under the provision of Section 42 of the Trade Mark Act 2009 on the ground of its non-user within the meaning of Section 71 of the Trade Mark Act 2009 and also whether the trade mark WvjWv (Dalda) has its distinct dissimilarities with the registered trade mark WvjWv (Dalda).
10. The petitioner being the user of commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) filed an application on 28th November, 1996 under the application No. 49105 in class-29 under the Trade Mark Act 1940 and Annexure-A, appended to the petition, reveals that the same was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 187 in the month of February 1998. Later, on the alleged non-action by the registrar of trade marks, the petitioner further filed another application on 25th April 2011 as application No. 142233 under the new statute Trade Mark Act 2009 as reveals from Annexure-B appended to the petition.
11. But from Annexure-C it appears that the registrar or the trade mark upon finding that the similar mark WvjWv (DALDA) in Bengali has already been registered under Registration No. 7685 and 7682, both in class-29, for which the registrar impliedly refused to register the Mark of the petitioner †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA). The petitioner has now approached this court with a prayer for a direction upon the register to remove the mark WvjWv (DALDA) from the registrar of Trade Mark and to register the petitioner mark †dªk WvjWv(FRESH DALDA) on two fold ground that the (I) Registered Trade Mark DALD WvjWv has not been in use for more than five years prior to one month of filing of the application and that (2) the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) has distinctive dissimilarity with the trade mark WvjWv (Dalda) upon asserting that the non-user of the said Trade Mark WvjWv (Dalda) is apparent from the facts that no product of Banaspati with the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) is marketed or available within the territory of Bangladesh and that despite the use of trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) by the petitioner for long no infringement suit was filed against him by the registered proprietor of the trade mark – WvjWv (DALDA) and, as such, the existence of the said trade mark hinders the petitioner’s right to get its trade mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) registered under the provisions of Trade Mark Act 2009.
12. It has further been argued that the Provisions of section 26(4) and 71 of the Trade Mark Act indicates that the product. along with the registered Trade Mark to be marketed within the territory of Bangladesh, in order to keep the mark in use, else the same will be treated as not in use.
13. These are the entire contention of the learned Advocate Mohammad Moazzem Hossain arguing on behalf of the petitioner.
14. The provision of section 42 or the Trade Mark Act 2009, which deals in removal of registered Trade Mark from the registrar (if trade mark, may be profitable examined ;
‡UªWgvK© AvBb 2009
aviv 42;
†UªWgvK© e¨envi bv Kwievi Kvib wbeÜb ewn nB‡Z KZ©b Ges mxgve×Zv Av‡ivc t – (1) hw` †Kvb msÿzä e¨w³ wbgœewY©Z †Kvb Kvi‡Y nvB‡KvU© wefvM ev wbe܇Ki wbKU, wba©vwiZ c×wZ‡Z Av‡e`b K‡ib, Zvnv nB‡j mswkøó cY¨ ev †mevi wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© wbeÜb ewn nB‡Z KZ©b Kiv hvB‡e-
(K) cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© wbe܇bi Av‡e`bKvix ev aviv 41 Gi Aax‡b MVbvaxb †Kv¤úvbx mr D‡Ï‡k¨ bv _vKv m‡Z¡I, mswkøó cY¨ ev †mevi ‡UªWgvK© wbeÜb Kiv nBqv‡Q Ges Av‡e`b `vwL‡ji c~e©eZ©x 1 (GK) gvm ch©šÍ Av‡e`bKvix ev D³ †Kv¤úvbx KZ©„K D³ cY¨ ev ‡mevi †UªWgvK© mr D‡×k¨ e¨envi Kiv nq bvB; A_ev
(L) †UªWgvK© wbewÜZ nBevi cieZx© 5(cuvP) ermi ev Z`yaŸ© mgq ch©šÍ D³ cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© Av‡e`bKvix ev †Kv¤úvbx KZ©„K mr D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nq bv|
(2) wbgœewY©Z ‡ÿÎmg~n e¨ZxZ, UªvBeybvj Dcaviv (1) G Aaxb `vwLjK…Z †Kvb Av‡e`b cÖZ¨vLvb Kwi‡e bv, hw`-
(K) aviv 10 Gi Aaxb Av‡e`bKvix‡K Awfbœ ev cÖvq mv`”k¨c~Y© cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© wbe܇bi AbygwZ cÖ`vb Kiv nh, A_ev
(L) UªvBeybv‡ji wbKU cÖZxqgvb nq †h, D³ cY ev †mevi †UªWgvK©, wbw`©ó ZvwiL ev †gqv‡`i g‡a¨, Av‡e`bKvix ev †Kv¤úvbx KZ©„K mr D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q|
(3) hw` †Kvb msÿzä e¨vw³ wbgœewY©Z †Kvb Kvi‡b nvB‡KvU wefvM ev wbe܇bi wbK‡U wba©vwiZ c×wZ‡Z Av‡e`b K‡ib, Zvnv nB‡j UªvBeybvj mswkøó cY¨ ev †mevi wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i e¨envi eÜ Kwievi j‡ÿ¨ mxgve×Zv Av‡ivc Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e-
(K) cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© weµ‡qi D‡Ïk¨ ev Ab¨fv‡e evsjv‡`‡ki †Kvb wbw`©ó ¯’vb e¨emv‡qi D‡Ïk¨ ev evsjv‡`‡ki evwn‡i wbw`©ó †Kvb evRv‡i ißvwb Kwievi D‡Ïk¨ wbewÜZ nBqv‡Q| wKšÍ wbewÜZ nBevi cieZx© 5(cuvP) ermi ev Z`~aŸ© mgq ch©šÍ D³ cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© Av‡e`bKvix ev †Kv¤úvbx KZ©”K mr D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nq|
(L) aviv 10 Gi Aaxb GKvwaK e¨w³‡K Awfbœ ev cÖvq mv`…k¨c~Y© cb¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© wbe܇bi AbygwZ cÖ`vb Kiv nBqv‡Q Ges Dnv weµ‡qi D‡Ïk¨ ev Ab¨fv‡e ißvwb Kwievi D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nq|
(4) Dc-aviv 1 Gi `dv (L) ev Dc-aviv (2) Gi D‡Ïk¨ c~iYKí, Av‡e`bKvix KZ©„K †UªWgv‡K©i e¨envi bv Kiv‡K GBiæc hyw³ wnmv‡e DÌvcb Kiv hvB‡e bv hvnv
(K) we‡kl cwiw¯’wZi Kvi‡b NwUqv‡Q Ges
(L) e¨emvq cwiZ¨v‡Mi B”Qv ev †UªWgvK© e¨envi bv Kwievi Kvib N‡U bvB|
15. The non-user of registered trade mark has been made a ground for its removal from the registrar of trade mark under the provision of section 42 of the trade mark Act 2009 and the phrase non-use has been defined in section 71 of the trade mark Act 2009 which reads as follows;
†UªWgvK© AvBb, 2009
aviv-71 †UªWgvK© Ges †UªW eY©bv e¨env‡ii (Ammi) A_©|-(1) †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, †UªWgvK© , gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv e¨eüZ nBqv‡Q ewjqv MY¨ nB‡e, hw` †Kvb e¨vw³-
(K) cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, Dnv e¨envi K‡ib;
(L) †h †gvo‡K cY¨ ev †mev weµq K‡ib ev weµ‡qi Rb¨ Db¥y³ iv‡Lb A_ev weµq, evwYR¨ ev Drcv`‡bi D‡Ï‡k¨ `L‡j iv‡Lb, †mB †gvo‡K Dnv e¨envi K‡ib;
(M) weµq ev weµ‡qi D‡Ï‡k¨ A_ev Drcv`‡bi ci weµq ev e¨ev‡qi D‡Ï‡k¨ `L‡j _vKv †Kvb cY¨ ev ‡mvmev Ggb †Kvb †gvo‡K iv‡Lb, mshy³ ev ms‡hvRb K‡ib hvnv‡Z †UªWgvK©, gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q;
(N) †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, †UªWgvK© ev gvK© Ggbfv‡e e¨envi K‡ib, hvnvi Øviv hyw³m½Zfv‡e cÖZxqgvb nq †h, D³ cY¨ ev †mevq †h †UªWgvK© ev gvK© e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q, Zvnv D³ †UªWgvK© , gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv Øviv wPwýZ ev ewY©Z; ev
(O) cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, †Kvb wPý, weÁvcb, Pvjvb, K¨vUvjM, e¨emvwqK wPwV, evwY©R¨cÎ, gyj¨ ZvwjKv ev AY¨ †Kvb evwYwR¨K `wj‡j †Kvb †UªWgvK© ev †UªW-eY©bv e¨envi K‡ib,& Ges D³ e¨eüZ †UªWgvK© ev †UªW eY©bv D‡jøL Kwiqv †Kvb Aby‡iva ev µqv‡`‡ki wfwˇZ cY¨ ev †mev Ab¨ ‡Kvb e¨w³i wbKU n¯ÍvšÍi K‡ib|
(2) †Kvb †UªWgvK© gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q ewjq cY¨ nB‡e, hw` Dnv eybbK…Z, Qvchy³ ev Ab¨ †Kvb cÖKv‡i Dnv‡Z ms‡hvwRZ ev msjMœ Kiv nq|
16. The provision of section 26(4) of the trade mark Act 2009 also deals with non-user of registered trade mark. The entire provision of section 26 reads as follows;
†UªWgvK© AvBb,2009
aviv 42;
aviv-26; †UªWgvK© joNb | -(1) †Kvb e¨vw³ wbewÜZ ¯^Ë¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î wbR e¨emvq ¯^Zš¿ ev cÖZvibvg~jKfv‡e mv`”k¨c~Y© †Kvb †UªWgvK© e¨envi Kwi‡j, wZwb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© joNb Kwiqv‡Qb g‡g© Mb¨ nB‡eb|
(2) †Kvb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© jwoNZ nB‡e, hw` D³ e¨w³ wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, wbR e¨emvq wbgœewY©Z †ÿ‡Z… Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, hvnv
(K) †UªWgvK©wUi mwnZ Awfbœ Ges †h cY¨ ev †mevq Dnvi e¨envi Kiv nq, ZvnvwbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ mv`„k¨c~Y©,
(To be continued)
(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.
(Statutory Original Jurisdiction)
AFM Abdur Rahman J
Managing Director, Baghdad
Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd ……………………. Petitioner
vs
Van Den Heghs and others ….
……………..Respondent
Judgement
January 11th
2012
Trade Mark Act (XIX of 2009)
Section 42
Provisions did not mention about the user of registered trade mark within the territory of Bangladesh yet the scheme and object of Act 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 Act. …………..(17)
Moazzam Hussain, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
Judgment
AFM Abdur Rahman J: This application, under section 42 of the Trade Mark Act 2009, praying for a direction for removal of the registered , Trade Mark No. 7685 and 7682, both in class No. 29 having Bengali inscription ……. (DALDA) from the register of Trade Mark, has been heard on contest and now disposed off by this judgment.
2. The petitioner asserts that it produces vegetable Ghee for quite a long time in its esteemed industry and adopted a Trade name consisting of the word †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) and applied for registration of the said trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) as trade mark before the Registrar of trade mark, the respondent No.2, under application No. 49105 in class-29, on 20th November, 1996 which was published in Trade Mark Journal No. 187 in the month of February 1998 as advertised.
3. But as the registrar of Trade Mark did not respond to the next step of the application within a reasonable period, the petitioner filed a fresh application being No. 142233 on 26 April 2011, upon which the examiner of the trade mark registry certified that the registered Trade Mark No. 7685 and 7682 both in class-29 contained similar Trade name in Bengali word WvjWv (DALDA) and, as such, the petitioners application cannot be entertained. The petitioner, upon enquiry, found that the Proprietor of that mark
WvjWv (DALDA), the respondent No.1, obtained registration of the said trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) in the year 1958 in c1ass-29 under No. 7685 and 7682 and obtained renewal of the same on 21-12-1976 and later on 21-4-2004 for consecutive 15 years from 1995 which having been expired and the said Trade Mark not being in use for a period of five years before one month of the tiling of the petitioner’s application, the trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) registered under No. 7685 and 7682 in class 29 has no use and, as such, required to be removed from the register of trade mark under the Provisions of section 42 (ka) and (kha) of the Trade Mark Act 2009 in order to facilitate the petitioners application registered.
4. The petitioner further asserts that due to superior quality of Banaspati (vegetable Ghee) marketed under his brand †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) the petitioner received popularity in the market due to its reputes and wide advertisement through various media and enough sale promotion measures were undertaken with the result that the Banaspati marketed under the trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) become distinctive of the product. As a matter of fact the Banaspati manufactured by the petitioner under the brand †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) is in great demand in the country as the consumer had a fascination for the Banaspati marketed under the Trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) and, as such, the petitioner lead the market by paying huge amount in taxes and in VAT to the government. Since the petitioner’s mark has not been admitted by the registrar of the trade mark for the reason due to the earlier registration of the trade mark – WvjWv (DALDA) under the registered No. 7685 and 7682 in Class-29, the same is required to be removed on the ground of non-user in order to facilitate the petitioners trade mark to be registered under the same class for which the registrar of the Trade Mark was duty bound to remove the said mark WvjWv (Dalda) from the registrar and in his failure the petitioner preferred the instant application before this court.
5. The notice of the instant proceeding was duly served upon the respondent No.1 VAN DEN BEGHS & JUGENS LIMITED by serving the same on the attorney of law for the respondent No. I, Remphay and Sons Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh, who obtained the renewal of the Trade Mark Nos. 7685 and 7682, both through manual and postal process.
But none appeared to oppose the application.
6. The learned Advocate Mr. Mohd. Moazzam Hussain. appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner is using the trade name/commercial mark †d”k WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) for his product of Banaspati marketed in Bangladesh since long for which it became a distinctive trade mark and the impugned mark WvjWv (DALDA) being distinctively dissimilar with the petitioners mark †dªk WvjWvv (FRESH DALDA), the petitioner is entitled to obtain registration of his commercial mark as trade mark. But the registrar of Trade Mark most illegally did not allow the registration of the petitioners mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) on the ground that the impugned Trade Mark. WvjWv (Dalda) earlier registered under No. 7685 and 7682 in the name of respondent No.1 is similar to petitioners mark which being misconceived decision, in as much as that the petitioners mark FRESH DALDA has distinctive dissimilarities with the registered mark WvjWv (Dalda), the petitioner is entitled to get the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) registered upon removing the impugned trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) from the registrar of Trade mark.
7. The learned Advocate Mr. Mohd. Moazzam Hussain, argued that the petitioner is an aggrieved person against the existence or the registered Trade Mark WvjWv (Dalda) in the registrar of trade mark which being expired and not being in use for more than five years within the territory of Bangladesh, most illegally caused non-acceptance of the petitioner application for registration of the Trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) as trade mark., but as no such product has been appearing in the markets within the territory of Bangladesh for long, the registered trade mark. WvjWv (DALDA) is liable to be removed from the register for its non-user for more than five years and the petitioner mark is entitled to be registered as a distinctive trade mark as it become such due to the wide marketing of the product Banaspati under the commercial name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA). The learned Advocate Mr Mohammad Moazzem Hossain contends that the provisions of section 26(4) of the Trade Mark Act 2009 provides the meaning of use of registered trade mark indicating that not only the trade mark itself must be used within the territory of Bangladesh but also the product having the registered trade mark inscribed must be marketed within the territory of Bangladesh.
8. The learned Advocate Mr Mohd Moazzam Hussain further argued that the nonuser of the Trade Mark WvjWv (Dalda) with the territory of Bangladesh appears from the fact that the proprietor of the same is not active in business with the product WvjWv (DALDA) within the territory of Bangladesh which is proved from the fact that no infringement suit has been filed against the petitioner although the petitioner has been in continuous use of the commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) from the year 1995 within the territory of Bangladesh for the same product Banaspati and therefore the petitioner is entitled to obtain the registration of his mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) under the application as filed before the registrar of trade mark upon removing the registrar trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) in the same class.
9. We have heard the learned Advocate, perused the materials on record.
The pertinent question to be addressed by this court is that whether the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) is liable to be removed from the register of trade mark under the provision of Section 42 of the Trade Mark Act 2009 on the ground of its non-user within the meaning of Section 71 of the Trade Mark Act 2009 and also whether the trade mark WvjWv (Dalda) has its distinct dissimilarities with the registered trade mark WvjWv (Dalda).
10. The petitioner being the user of commercial mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) filed an application on 28th November, 1996 under the application No. 49105 in class-29 under the Trade Mark Act 1940 and Annexure-A, appended to the petition, reveals that the same was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 187 in the month of February 1998. Later, on the alleged non-action by the registrar of trade marks, the petitioner further filed another application on 25th April 2011 as application No. 142233 under the new statute Trade Mark Act 2009 as reveals from Annexure-B appended to the petition.
11. But from Annexure-C it appears that the registrar or the trade mark upon finding that the similar mark WvjWv (DALDA) in Bengali has already been registered under Registration No. 7685 and 7682, both in class-29, for which the registrar impliedly refused to register the Mark of the petitioner †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA). The petitioner has now approached this court with a prayer for a direction upon the register to remove the mark WvjWv (DALDA) from the registrar of Trade Mark and to register the petitioner mark †dªk WvjWv(FRESH DALDA) on two fold ground that the (I) Registered Trade Mark DALD WvjWv has not been in use for more than five years prior to one month of filing of the application and that (2) the mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) has distinctive dissimilarity with the trade mark WvjWv (Dalda) upon asserting that the non-user of the said Trade Mark WvjWv (Dalda) is apparent from the facts that no product of Banaspati with the registered trade mark WvjWv (DALDA) is marketed or available within the territory of Bangladesh and that despite the use of trade name †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) by the petitioner for long no infringement suit was filed against him by the registered proprietor of the trade mark – WvjWv (DALDA) and, as such, the existence of the said trade mark hinders the petitioner’s right to get its trade mark †dªk WvjWv (FRESH DALDA) registered under the provisions of Trade Mark Act 2009.
12. It has further been argued that the Provisions of section 26(4) and 71 of the Trade Mark Act indicates that the product. along with the registered Trade Mark to be marketed within the territory of Bangladesh, in order to keep the mark in use, else the same will be treated as not in use.
13. These are the entire contention of the learned Advocate Mohammad Moazzem Hossain arguing on behalf of the petitioner.
14. The provision of section 42 or the Trade Mark Act 2009, which deals in removal of registered Trade Mark from the registrar (if trade mark, may be profitable examined ;
‡UªWgvK© AvBb 2009
aviv 42;
†UªWgvK© e¨envi bv Kwievi Kvib wbeÜb ewn nB‡Z KZ©b Ges mxgve×Zv Av‡ivc t – (1) hw` †Kvb msÿzä e¨w³ wbgœewY©Z †Kvb Kvi‡Y nvB‡KvU© wefvM ev wbe܇Ki wbKU, wba©vwiZ c×wZ‡Z Av‡e`b K‡ib, Zvnv nB‡j mswkøó cY¨ ev †mevi wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© wbeÜb ewn nB‡Z KZ©b Kiv hvB‡e-
(K) cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© wbe܇bi Av‡e`bKvix ev aviv 41 Gi Aax‡b MVbvaxb †Kv¤úvbx mr D‡Ï‡k¨ bv _vKv m‡Z¡I, mswkøó cY¨ ev †mevi ‡UªWgvK© wbeÜb Kiv nBqv‡Q Ges Av‡e`b `vwL‡ji c~e©eZ©x 1 (GK) gvm ch©šÍ Av‡e`bKvix ev D³ †Kv¤úvbx KZ©„K D³ cY¨ ev ‡mevi †UªWgvK© mr D‡×k¨ e¨envi Kiv nq bvB; A_ev
(L) †UªWgvK© wbewÜZ nBevi cieZx© 5(cuvP) ermi ev Z`yaŸ© mgq ch©šÍ D³ cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© Av‡e`bKvix ev †Kv¤úvbx KZ©„K mr D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nq bv|
(2) wbgœewY©Z ‡ÿÎmg~n e¨ZxZ, UªvBeybvj Dcaviv (1) G Aaxb `vwLjK…Z †Kvb Av‡e`b cÖZ¨vLvb Kwi‡e bv, hw`-
(K) aviv 10 Gi Aaxb Av‡e`bKvix‡K Awfbœ ev cÖvq mv`”k¨c~Y© cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© wbe܇bi AbygwZ cÖ`vb Kiv nh, A_ev
(L) UªvBeybv‡ji wbKU cÖZxqgvb nq †h, D³ cY ev †mevi †UªWgvK©, wbw`©ó ZvwiL ev †gqv‡`i g‡a¨, Av‡e`bKvix ev †Kv¤úvbx KZ©„K mr D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q|
(3) hw` †Kvb msÿzä e¨vw³ wbgœewY©Z †Kvb Kvi‡b nvB‡KvU wefvM ev wbe܇bi wbK‡U wba©vwiZ c×wZ‡Z Av‡e`b K‡ib, Zvnv nB‡j UªvBeybvj mswkøó cY¨ ev †mevi wbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i e¨envi eÜ Kwievi j‡ÿ¨ mxgve×Zv Av‡ivc Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e-
(K) cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© weµ‡qi D‡Ïk¨ ev Ab¨fv‡e evsjv‡`‡ki †Kvb wbw`©ó ¯’vb e¨emv‡qi D‡Ïk¨ ev evsjv‡`‡ki evwn‡i wbw`©ó †Kvb evRv‡i ißvwb Kwievi D‡Ïk¨ wbewÜZ nBqv‡Q| wKšÍ wbewÜZ nBevi cieZx© 5(cuvP) ermi ev Z`~aŸ© mgq ch©šÍ D³ cY¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© Av‡e`bKvix ev †Kv¤úvbx KZ©”K mr D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nq|
(L) aviv 10 Gi Aaxb GKvwaK e¨w³‡K Awfbœ ev cÖvq mv`…k¨c~Y© cb¨ ev †mevi †UªWgvK© wbe܇bi AbygwZ cÖ`vb Kiv nBqv‡Q Ges Dnv weµ‡qi D‡Ïk¨ ev Ab¨fv‡e ißvwb Kwievi D‡Ïk¨ e¨envi Kiv nq|
(4) Dc-aviv 1 Gi `dv (L) ev Dc-aviv (2) Gi D‡Ïk¨ c~iYKí, Av‡e`bKvix KZ©„K †UªWgv‡K©i e¨envi bv Kiv‡K GBiæc hyw³ wnmv‡e DÌvcb Kiv hvB‡e bv hvnv
(K) we‡kl cwiw¯’wZi Kvi‡b NwUqv‡Q Ges
(L) e¨emvq cwiZ¨v‡Mi B”Qv ev †UªWgvK© e¨envi bv Kwievi Kvib N‡U bvB|
15. The non-user of registered trade mark has been made a ground for its removal from the registrar of trade mark under the provision of section 42 of the trade mark Act 2009 and the phrase non-use has been defined in section 71 of the trade mark Act 2009 which reads as follows;
†UªWgvK© AvBb, 2009
aviv-71 †UªWgvK© Ges †UªW eY©bv e¨env‡ii (Ammi) A_©|-(1) †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, †UªWgvK© , gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv e¨eüZ nBqv‡Q ewjqv MY¨ nB‡e, hw` †Kvb e¨vw³-
(K) cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, Dnv e¨envi K‡ib;
(L) †h †gvo‡K cY¨ ev †mev weµq K‡ib ev weµ‡qi Rb¨ Db¥y³ iv‡Lb A_ev weµq, evwYR¨ ev Drcv`‡bi D‡Ï‡k¨ `L‡j iv‡Lb, †mB †gvo‡K Dnv e¨envi K‡ib;
(M) weµq ev weµ‡qi D‡Ï‡k¨ A_ev Drcv`‡bi ci weµq ev e¨ev‡qi D‡Ï‡k¨ `L‡j _vKv †Kvb cY¨ ev ‡mvmev Ggb †Kvb †gvo‡K iv‡Lb, mshy³ ev ms‡hvRb K‡ib hvnv‡Z †UªWgvK©, gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q;
(N) †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, †UªWgvK© ev gvK© Ggbfv‡e e¨envi K‡ib, hvnvi Øviv hyw³m½Zfv‡e cÖZxqgvb nq †h, D³ cY¨ ev †mevq †h †UªWgvK© ev gvK© e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q, Zvnv D³ †UªWgvK© , gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv Øviv wPwýZ ev ewY©Z; ev
(O) cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î, †Kvb wPý, weÁvcb, Pvjvb, K¨vUvjM, e¨emvwqK wPwV, evwY©R¨cÎ, gyj¨ ZvwjKv ev AY¨ †Kvb evwYwR¨K `wj‡j †Kvb †UªWgvK© ev †UªW-eY©bv e¨envi K‡ib,& Ges D³ e¨eüZ †UªWgvK© ev †UªW eY©bv D‡jøL Kwiqv †Kvb Aby‡iva ev µqv‡`‡ki wfwˇZ cY¨ ev †mev Ab¨ ‡Kvb e¨w³i wbKU n¯ÍvšÍi K‡ib|
(2) †Kvb †UªWgvK© gvK© ev †UªW eY©bv cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î e¨envi Kiv nBqv‡Q ewjq cY¨ nB‡e, hw` Dnv eybbK…Z, Qvchy³ ev Ab¨ †Kvb cÖKv‡i Dnv‡Z ms‡hvwRZ ev msjMœ Kiv nq|
16. The provision of section 26(4) of the trade mark Act 2009 also deals with non-user of registered trade mark. The entire provision of section 26 reads as follows;
†UªWgvK© AvBb,2009
aviv 42;
aviv-26; †UªWgvK© joNb | -(1) †Kvb e¨vw³ wbewÜZ ¯^Ë¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, †Kvb cY¨ ev †mevi †ÿ‡Î wbR e¨emvq ¯^Zš¿ ev cÖZvibvg~jKfv‡e mv`”k¨c~Y© †Kvb †UªWgvK© e¨envi Kwi‡j, wZwb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© joNb Kwiqv‡Qb g‡g© Mb¨ nB‡eb|
(2) †Kvb wbewÜZ †UªWgvK© jwoNZ nB‡e, hw` D³ e¨w³ wbewÜZ ¯^Z¡vwaKvix ev wbewÜZ e¨enviKvix bv nIqv m‡Z¡I, wbR e¨emvq wbgœewY©Z †ÿ‡Z… Ggb †Kvb gvK© e¨envi K‡ib, hvnv
(K) †UªWgvK©wUi mwnZ Awfbœ Ges †h cY¨ ev †mevq Dnvi e¨envi Kiv nq, ZvnvwbewÜZ †UªWgv‡K©i cY¨ ev †mevi mwnZ mv`„k¨c~Y©,
(To be continued)
(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.
