Enough Evidence!!

Recently, in M/s. Agar Distributors (India) v. IPAB and M/s. Lakh Enterprises[1], Bombay High Court adjudicated that Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) cannot review a judgment under indecisive conditions. This is despite the fact that under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the IPAB is authorized to take additional documents on record as excogitated under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. In this case, the Court’s judgment was that when there was an earlier registration and pendency of Agar Distributors, application of similar trademarks are significant and credible documents essential to an appropriate adjudication of the matter. Holding the IPAB’s decision to disallow such evidence, on grounds of ‘no diligence’ and ‘no justification’, to be erroneous, the Court consequently allowed Agar Distributors to file further evidence.  Some foreign judgments such as Ladd v. Marshall[2] and Hunt Wesson Inc's Trade Mark Application[3] can also be referred for deciding whether or not further evidence should be admitted on appeal. 

By Vidhi Agarwal, Partner

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/55520553/M-S-Agar-Distributors-I-Ndia-vs-Intellectural-Property-on-29-April-2011
[2] [(1954) 1 WLR 1489]
[3] [(1996) RPC 233]