)
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has asked the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark 'Haldiram Bhujiawala' -- the sweets and snacks brand -- issued to a Kolkata-based firm. The order was on a petition filed by Delhi-based Haldiram (India) Pvt Ltd, against trade mark on Haldiram Bhujiawala, filed by the Kolkata firm.
According to the order, the trademark Haldiram Bhujiawala was invented in the year 1941 which was adopted by Ganga Bishan, for his sweets, papads and saltish food products and the name acquired popularity in a short span of time. His sons joined the business and later one of the sons, Rameswar Lal retired from the company and shifted to Kolkata. His father permitted him to use the said trademark only in Kolkata.
Later, Moolchand, another son of Ganga Bishan acquired the exclusive right to use the trademark, 'Haldiram Bhujiawala' for the entire country except the State of West Bengal. In West Bengal, Lal and his family were running the business using the trademark. The IPAB order was on the dispute between the family members of the founder, Ganga Bishan.
The founder, in 1965, conceived a trademark 'Haldiram Bhujiawala' HRB logo as represented in ‘V’ Shape and an application for registration of the said trademark was filed by the firm for the whole of India in 1972.
The Kolkata firm, which had another partner, filed an application for registering trademark and logo for Haldiram, suppressing the facts related to the existing trademark, alleged the heirs of Moolchand in the IPAB. However, while the firm of Lal which registered the trademark in Kolkata was dissolved, the family of Lal relinquished the rights in the trade mark No 330375.
The Coram of IPAB, comprising of S Usha, vice chairman and V Ravi, Technical Member (Trademarks), in the order observed that Lal is not the inventor of the trademark, as claimed by the respondents (the Kolkata firm) at some point of time of the litigation. The claim of proprietorship of Rameshwar Lal is wrong. The said trademark registration is in violation of the provisions of the Act.
"We therefore are of the view that the trademark has not been used by the registered proprietors and therefore has to be removed from the Register under Section 47(1)(b) of the Act," said the order.
"... we do not think it fit to allow the impugned trademark to continue on the Register. We therefore direct the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark No 330375 in Class 30. The application for rectification is consequently allowed," said the order.
