2008 (12) TMI 804 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Ownership and Prior Use of the Trade Mark "Camel Collection."
3. Dishonest Adoption of the Trade Mark.
4. Transborder Reputation and Passing Off.
5. Compliance with Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), and 18(1) of the Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
The court emphasized that the power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts within their bounds, not for correcting mere errors. The High Court's role is not to act as an appellate authority to reappraise evidence but to ensure that the tribunals do not exceed their jurisdiction or commit gross errors of law. The court cited several precedents, including Waryam Singh v. Amarnath and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, to highlight the limited scope of intervention under Article 227.

2. Ownership and Prior Use of the Trade Mark "Camel Collection":
The petitioner claimed ownership of the "Camel Collection" trademark, citing global registrations and long-standing use. However, the appellate Board found no substantial evidence linking the petitioner's documents to the ownership of the trademark. The documents provided were associated with RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) and not directly with the petitioner. The court upheld the appellate Board's finding that the petitioner failed to establish ownership or prior use in India.

3. Dishonest Adoption of the Trade Mark:
The respondents adopted the "Camel Collection" trademark in 1992 and used it extensively. The appellate Board found no evidence that the respondents were aware of the petitioner's trademark at the time of adoption. The court noted that even if the respondents had manufactured garments for a German licensee, there was no proof that the garments bore the "Camel" trademark. The court agreed with the appellate Board's conclusion that the adoption was not dishonest.

4. Transborder Reputation and Passing Off:
The petitioner argued that the "Camel" brand had a transborder reputation, citing the availability of Camel brand cigarettes in duty-free shops and advertisements. However, the appellate Board found no evidence of the brand's reputation in India. The court reiterated that transborder reputation requires substantial evidence of recognition and goodwill in the country, which the petitioner failed to provide. The court dismissed the claim of passing off due to lack of evidence.

5. Compliance with Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), and 18(1) of the Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958:
The petitioner contended that the registration of the "Camel Collection" trademark by the respondents violated Sections 9, 11(a), 11(e), and 18(1) of the Act. However, the appellate Board and the Registrar of Trade Marks found that the respondents' use of the trademark was legitimate and did not infringe on the petitioner's rights. The court upheld these findings, stating that the petitioner's objections were not supported by evidence.

Conclusion:
The court found no patent error or infirmity in the appellate Board's order. The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the registration of the "Camel Collection" trademark in favor of the respondents was confirmed. The court also declined to consider new documents submitted by the petitioner, as they were not presented before the lower authorities. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded.