{"id":1754,"date":"2024-04-22T10:51:27","date_gmt":"2024-04-22T05:21:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1754"},"modified":"2025-01-08T14:30:46","modified_gmt":"2025-01-08T09:00:46","slug":"delhi-hc-cancels-trademark-registration-of-a-man-infringing-dolma-aunty-momos-trademark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/delhi-hc-cancels-trademark-registration-of-a-man-infringing-dolma-aunty-momos-trademark\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi HC cancels trademark registration of a man infringing ‘Dolma Aunty Momos’ trademark"},"content":{"rendered":"

DOLMA TSERING\u00a0 [<\/strong>Petitioner] Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>MOHD. AKRAM KHAN AND ANR\u00a0 [<\/strong>Respondents]<\/h1>\n

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 334\/2021<\/p>\n

(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present rectification petition has been filed seeking cancellation and removal of respondent No.1\u2019s trademark \u2018DOLMA AUNTY MOMOS\u2019 registered with application no. 3794360 in Class 30 on 24th September, 2018 in application dated 02nd April, 2018 on a proposed to be used basis. This petition was filed before the Intellectual Property<\/a> Appellate Board (\u2018IPAB\u2019) in 2021, however, post abolition of the IPAB, this petition has been transferred to this Court. Grievance of plaintiff is against respondent\u2019s trademark who has adopted not only the prior used trademark of petitioner but also that the said trademark is identical and uses the name of petitioner herself as in \u2018DOLMA\u2019. Considering that respondent No.1 has not appeared or responded to the said petition, allegations of non-use by petitioner stand unrebutted and, therefore, will have to be accepted. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed cancellation inter alia on the ground of Sections 11(1), 11(2), 11(3)(a) and 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the present rectification petition is maintainable or not?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In support of the rectification petition, it has been submitted that the petitioner Ms. Dolma Tsering is the proprietor of M\/s Dolma Aunty Momos with its principal outlet at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi<\/a>. It is claimed that she has been engaged in the business of selling the Tibetan delicacy \u2018momos\u2019 and other like products since 1994, and as of 2021 ran five shops across Delhi-NCR. The petitioner owns registration in the trademark \u2018DOLMA AUNTY MOMOS\u2019 bearing no. 5415961 in Class 29 applied on 20th April, 2022 and granted on 17th November, 2023, user claimed from 01st January, 1994. Yet another application for registration of a trademark is pending under Class 43 with the application bearing status \u2018Accepted & Advertised\u2019.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 till date despite service including on 21st April, 2023. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court disposed off the present petition and held that, \u201cIn view of the above facts and circumstances and having perused the documents placed on record as well as hearing submissions of counsel for petitioner, this Court is of the view that the trademark of respondent No.1 be cancelled and removed from the Trade Marks Register same should accordingly be rectified.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DOLMA TSERING\u00a0 [Petitioner] Vs.\u00a0 MOHD. AKRAM KHAN AND ANR\u00a0 [Respondents] C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 334\/2021 (CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL) Facts: The present rectification petition has been filed seeking cancellation and removal of respondent No.1\u2019s trademark \u2018DOLMA AUNTY MOMOS\u2019 registered with application no. 3794360 in Class 30 on 24th September, 2018 in application dated 02nd April, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1756,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1754"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2689,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1754\/revisions\/2689"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1756"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}