Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3273 (DEL)

Babu Bhai v. Rashid Bhai

2012-12-20

D.MURUGESAN, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

body2012
JUDGMENT : Since the counsel for the caveator/respondent has appeared, the caveat stands discharged. CM No. 21279/2012 (for exemption) in LPA No. 839/2012 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. LPA 839/2012 & CM No. 21278/2012 (for stay) & W.P.(C) No. 6408/2012 1. Babu Bhai and Rashid Bhai were partners, which partnership was dissolved. According to Babu Bhai, in the said dissolution, the trademark earlier of the firm vested in him. Babu Bhai applied for registration of the trademark in his favour. Rashid Bhai objected. The Registrar of Trademarks dismissed the objections of Rashid Bhai and granted registration in favour of Babu Bhai. Rashid Bhai appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The said appeal was accompanied with an application for interim stay of the order of the Registrar. The said application for interim relief, was dismissed vide a detailed order dated 8th August, 2012 of the IPAB. 2. Rashid Bhai preferred W.P.(C) No. 6408/2012, impugning the said order dated 8th August, 2012 of the IPAB. The learned Single Judge issued notice of the said writ petition and has vide interim order dated 9th October, 2012, stayed the order of the IPAB. 3. Impugning the aforesaid interim order in the writ petition, the intra court appeal has been filed. 4. After some hearing, the counsels for Babu Bhai and Rashid Bhai agree that the writ petition as well as the appeal be disposed of on the following terms: (i) the order dated 9th October, 2012 of the learned Single Judge be set aside restoring the order dated 8th August, 2012 of the IPAB. (ii) the IPAB be directed to dispose of the appeal of Rashid Bhai within the time to be fixed by this Court. 5. The aforesaid consent terms are found by us to be just and reasonable. We are informed that the next sitting of the IPAB at Delhi is scheduled on 11th February, 2013. Counsels for both the parties state that the pleadings, if any, required to be completed in the appeal, will be completed well in advance and request for a direction to the IPAB to take up the appeal for hearing on 11th February, 2013 itself is made. Counsels for both the parties state that the pleadings, if any, required to be completed in the appeal, will be completed well in advance and request for a direction to the IPAB to take up the appeal for hearing on 11th February, 2013 itself is made. They further seek a clarification that nothing contained in the order dated 8th August, 2012 of the IPAB or in the order dated 9th October, 2012 of the learned Single Judge, shall affect the outcome of the appeal. 6. The writ petition as well as the appeal are accordingly disposed of on the above terms with a request to the IPAB to take up the appeal preferred by Rashid Bhai being OA/12/2012/TM/Del for hearing on 11th February, 2013 itself and if for any reason, it is not taken up for hearing on that date, on the next earliest date and to dispose of the same expeditiously. Liberty is also granted to both the parties to produce this order before the IPAB for listing of the appeal for hearing on 11th February, 2013 or on any earlier or later date, if the hearing is not taken up on 11th February, 2013, in terms of above. Though, it is clear in law that the contents of the interim orders as the orders dated 8th August, 2012 and 9th October, 2012 (supra) are, do not affect the outcome of the main proceedings, still since the counsels have requested, it is so clarified. No costs.