BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, DELHI
EXAMINATION REPORT NO.TMR/DELHI/EXM/2021/
APPLICATION NO. 4996079 (CLASS-25)
IN THE MATTER OF:
TRADE MARK “ ”
FILED IN THE NAME OF
(Aman Soni) APPLICANT
REPLY TO THE EXAMINATION REPORT NO. TMR/DELHI/EXM/2021 DATED
16th June, 2016 AT 13:43:27
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:-
I. That Aman Soni resident of 52/69 Nagla Lal Singh, Barah Khamba, Agra-Uttar
Pradesh (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”) engaged in the business of trading
of clothing (Ready-to-wear clothing; Clothing for men, women and children;
Nightwear; Nightdresses; Woolen clothing; Under garments; Sleeping garments;
Bathrobes; Coats; Leather garments; Clothing for infants; Gloves for apparel;
Garments for protecting clothing; Beach clothing; Nappy pants), jackets (Athletic
clothing; Ready-made clothing; Jogging sets) and footwear (Headgear) (hereinafter
referred as “Items/Goods”) and started using the logo “ ”
(hereinafter referred as “Trade Mark/Brand Name”) with respect tothe above said
items as Temporary Mark as per the various guidelines and rules issued by the
Trademark Department.
II. That the Applicant had applied for registration of the above said word with bonafide
intention to create and establish distinguish Brand Name in the area of its working,
so that the customers and other people dealing with him could recognize the items
dealt by him through the above said Brand Name and it helps lend a competitive
edge to his goods and items. Therefore, he originated the logo “ ”
for the above said goods and items. Moreover, the Applicant had spent considerable
efforts to promote the above said Brand Name. Hence the said Brand Name is now
recognised among the industry members and customers.
III. The logo is solely designed for the trading of and is absolutely match with the
business activity in which the applicant is dealing.
That the Opponent has raised an objection vide examination report dated 16th June, 2021,
mentioned as below:
1. It is submitted that the adoption of the impugned mark is
dishonest and therefore its registration is likely to be
contrary to the provisions of Section 18(1) of The
Trademarks Act, 1999;
2. The registration of the impugned mark is likely to be
contrary to the provisions of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act as
the impugned mark is likely to deceive the public and cause
confusion.
3. The objection is raised under S 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act
1999, as the mark is identical with or similar to Opponent’s
mark,” “ and there exists a likelihood of
confusion on the part of the public;
Reply to the above said objection:
1. The applicant has applied trademark vide application number “4996079” for the
trademark .
2. The above mentioned objection raised by the Opponent under Section 18(1) of the
Trade Marks Act 1999, that the applicant has used the mark dishonestly, which is
purely a wrong contention.
3. The above mentioned objection raised by the Opponent under Section 9(2)(a) of the
Trade Marks Act 1999, that the impugned mark is likely to deceive the public and
cause confusion as the business of applicant is purely clothing and footwear.
4. The above mentioned objection raised by the Opponent under Section 11(1) of the
Trade Marks Act 1999, that the applicant`s mark is identical or similar with the
conflicting mark “ ”.
5. The applicant would like to clarify that the applicant inadvertently write name of
Mark “Robbie Jones”, while the opponent’s mark is written with “ZSYTO”. The names
are completely different. Also, there is not much resemblance in the design of leaf,
as the applicants mark, “ ” is facing the leaf on left side, while the
opponent’s design of leaf “ ” is facing the right side. The
applicant further requests the good office of registrar to allow the applicant to use
the name.
6. We have spent a rich amount on posters, pamphlets, banners, stickers,
advertisement, and established a brand name “ ”.
7. Presently, we have a good customer base of clothes (Jeans, Denim Jeans, and Blue
Jeans) with the above said brand name.
Thus, from the abovementioned stated facts and circumstances, We modestly request the
good office of the registrar of trademark to allow applicant proceed the trademark
registration proceed with the trademark mentioned in the application.
Hence Applicant hereby requests to publish the Applicant Mark in Trademark Journal for
further proceedings.
Prayer:
a. In view of the above stated submissions the application is entitled to be
accepted for registration.
Place: Delhi Dated:09/09/2021
Reply to Objection
ENOVUS ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED - 5080053 - Class 35
To,
The Registrar of TradeMarks
Office of the Trademark Registry, Delhi.
Re: Reply to objection dated 11/08/2021 concerning trademark application number 2672876
filed in the name of M/S JITENDER VALECHA
Dear sir,
In response to the objects raised under Trademark Act 1999 and Trademark Rules 2002 as
stated in the objection, in respect of the above referred Trademark application, we
respectfully submit our reply as under
Objections
1. The Trade Mark application is open to objection on relative grounds of refusal under
Section 11 of the Act because the same/similar trademarks(s) is/are already on record
of the register for the same or similar goods/services. The detail of same/similar
trademarks is enclosed herewith
The objection is raised under S 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act,1999, as the mark is
identical with or similar to earlier marks in respect of identical or similar description
of goods or services and because of such identity or similarity there exists a likelihood
of confusion on the part of the public.
Submission: We would like to submit that the applicant has applied the mark
in the device mark category for Jitendra valecha . The captioned
mark “SEENAGER” which is proposed to be used is extremely unique and different as
compared to the mark cited in the examination report. The cited mark in the examination
report is a word mark which in its totality is unique and has little to no similarity with the
captioned mark.
The learned Examiner of TMR has also failed to realize that our client’s trademark is only in
the category of word mark and is therefore not similar/identical as to the display, front and
gate up of the mark mentioned in the examination report.
Further, we would like to submit that the learned Examiner has not considered the whole
mark together and has avoided looking at the overall get up of the trademark. Both the
marks has different resemblance and also the spelling of the word seenager is different
which is used in both the marks as one does not contain T and another one does contain
T in its spelling, also the mark belongs to a different class, one is from class 25 and one
is from class 35.
Moreover, in all two marks cited by the learned examiner the captioned mark is for goods
and services for clothes and handloom. Whereas the cited mark “SEENAGERS” with
application number 5080053 renders services of providing information via
telecommunication networks for advertising online sales retailing related to different
products related to different products like jewellery, handbags, belts, perfumes etc. .
CAPTIONED mark “IMAGE CONTAINS WORDS SIGNATURE AND STEENAGERS
WITH A COMMON S ” with application number 2672876 renders goods/service related to
clothes and handloom, not included in other classes; covers for jeans, trouser, jackets,shirts
included in class 25
Cited mark with application number 5080053 renders service vie telecommunication
network for promotion of sale, online sale of different product like jewelry, handbags,
belts, perfumes etc which are included in class 35
It is to be specifically noted that the mark “Panipat Handloom” in the word mark category has
been created out of sheer intellect and hard work of the applicant.
So, in the light of the aforesaid point we humbly request the learned examiner to waive off
the objections as raised and proceed to advertise the mark in trademarks journal. With
regards and Thanks,
____________
Attorney for the applicant
Attorney Code No. 17363
ANU SHARMA
