FEES: Rs.

2,700/- FORM TM-O Agent Code - 8992

COUNTER STATEMENT
THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999.
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rectification to Registered Trade Mark
No. 1557559 in Class - 30, in the name
of Manoj Kumar Jagnani Trading As
M/s Lalit Enterprises a Proprietorship
Firm of Main Road, P.O. Chas, Dist.
Bokaro, Pin-827013, Jharkhand.
………..Registered Proprietor
AND

IN THE MATTER OF
Rectification No. 282729, Instituted by
Cargill India Private Limited of Y-65,
Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi –
110016.
………..Applicant
I, Manoj Kumar Jagnani being the Proprietor of M/s Lalit Enterprises a
Proprietorship Firm of Main Road, P.O. Chas, Dist. Bokaro, Pin-827013,
Jharkhand (herein after called as the Registered Proprietor) do hereby
give the Counterstatement that the following are the grounds on which
we rely on the registration of the Registered Proprietor’s Mark to
remain valid in the Register of Trade Marks.

1. The Registered Proprietor/Registered Proprietor’s Attorney has

been served with a copy of Notice of Opposition/Rectification
Application on Form TM-O from the Trade Marks Registry Kolkata for
the aforesaid Opposition Matter through Electronic Mail on 07/06/2024.
The Registered Proprietor has read the said Rectification Application
and is aware of the content and meaning of the same. We herein are
filing the Counter Statement within the time.

2. The Registered Proprietor is a leading and well established and

renowned manufacturer, trader and merchant and service provider of
Isabgol and Tea and has been carrying on business from its principal
place of business at Main Road, P.O. Chas, Dist. Bokaro, Pin-827013,
Jharkhand for the last several years. The Registered Proprietor has
taken/obtained necessary licenses and certificates for manufacturing
and trading and distributing and providing the said goods and services
from the Statutory Authorities/Offices of India. The Registered
Proprietor reserves its/their right to produce the Evidential Documents
in time before this Ld. Tribunal.

3. On 01/01/2001, the Registered Proprietor honestly conceived and

adopted the Mark and started the business of

manufacturing and trading of Isabgol and Tea under the Trading style of

M/s Lalit Enterprises. The said Trade Mark is a

composite device Mark. The said Mark is not only the Precious Business
Property of the Registered Proprietor but also the major part of
Registered Proprietor’s Trading Style.

4. The Registered Proprietor has been carrying on their business

under the said Trade Mark continuously,

extensively and uninterruptedly in course of Trade since 01/01/2001 and
the same has gained tremendous goodwill and reputation over the said
periods. The goods of the Registered Proprietor are renowned for their
superior quality and have been running the business honestly, bonafide
and with good faith and without any interruption for the past several
years.

5. The Registered Proprietor had applied for the registration of the

Mark before the Trade Marks Registry under

Trade Mark No. 1557559 in Class 30 in order to acquire statutory right
as well as common law right over the said Trade Mark

. After completing the necessary formalities of the

Trade Marks Registry, the said Trade Mark of the

Registered Proprietor became registered and stood valid and Renew
upto 11/05/2027 in the record of Register of Trade Marks. The
Registered Proprietor reserves its/their right to produce the evidential
documents in time before this Ld. Tribunal.

6. I state that the Registered Proprietor was the first in adopting and

using the Trade Mark in respect of Isabgol and

Tea being included in class 30. By reason of the voluminous, long
standing and continuous use of the said Trade Mark

has acquired valuable goodwill and reputation in

the Trade. The said Trade Mark has become distinctive with that of the
goods of the Registered Proprietor. The Trade Mark
 has acquired secondary meanings and has
become distinctive with that of the goods of the Registered Proprietor.

7. I state that when the Trade Mark was

adopted by the Registered Proprietor then no similar mark existed
and/or was known in the Trade and also in the Register of Trade Marks
in respect of Isabgol and Tea. The Registered Proprietor is the pioneer

and has a prior right to use the said Mark in

respect of the said goods of the Registered Proprietor. The Registered
Proprietor is the bonafide adopter of the said Mark
 in relation to Isabgol and Tea being included in
class 30.

8. The said Mark is printed on the products of

the Registered Proprietor and these are solely associated with people
common to the trade and public at large. The said Artistic get up

has become distinctive with the products of the

Registered Proprietor.

9. The Registered Proprietor has expanded the area of his/its

business gradually. The process of expansion and/or diversification of
the business are still continuing and the said Trade Mark
 of the Registered Proprietor has acquired the
status of popular Trade Mark amongst the consumers, customers and
the people common to the trade.

10. By virtue of extensive sales and widespread publicity in respect of

goods in India, the said Trade Mark has created

long lasting impressions amongst the customers. The customers,
consumers, retailers, vendors associate the said Trade Mark

with the goods and to the business of

M/s Lalit Enterprises and its associates only.
11. The Trade Mark has become synonymous
with the Registered Proprietor’s business in relation to the Registered
Proprietor’s goods of the Registered Proprietor over the years.

12. The Registered Proprietor has been zealously protecting,

nurturing and promoting his/its hard earned brand value and
enormous goodwill for his/its closely guarded Trade Mark

and in this direction, huge amount of publicity

and advertisement have been made through various advertising media

to popularize the Mark . The Registered

Proprietor reserves its/their right to produce the evidential documents
in time before this Ld. Tribunal.
13. The Registered Proprietor has been vigilant in safeguarding and
protecting their well established Trade mark and has taken necessary
steps before the appropriate forum/fora to protect the said Trade Mark

14. By virtue of voluminous user of the mark since the adoptions

uninterruptedly in relation to the said goods coupled with extensive
sales promotion activities throughout the length and breadth of this

country, the said Trade Mark has reached every

nook and corner in India and has been recognized as a leading brand of
great repute by the costumers and the trade.
15. The Registered Proprietor’s Trade Mark has
developed unsurpassed reputation and goodwill in respect of the said
goods. Indian costumers and retailers have become well acquainted with

the fact that the brand connotes reliability, good

quality and/or very high grade due to long, continuous and extensive

use of the Trade Mark and the vast and

unparalleled reputation and goodwill that it has earned.

16. By reason of user for considerable period of time in vast area,

advertisements and publicity of the Trade Mark

has come within the knowledge of large section of public in India and
associated with the business of M/s Lalit Enterprises and/or its
associates, licenses, permitted users, franchises have become a well
known Trade Mark under the meaning of various provisions of the Act,
and is entitled to the protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

17. The people common to the trade and the general public who see

the Mark or phonetically, structurally similar

mark in any from whatsoever or with any other letter/letters sounding

assume that it is emanating from M/s Lalit

Enterprises or it has got some connection/association with the said

Firm. The Trade Mark has earned such wide

reputation in the Indian markets through continued publicity.
18. We shall now deal with the allegations made in various
paragraphs of the ‘Notice of Opposition/Rectification Application’, and
save which are matters of record all other allegations made in the said
opposition are denied and disputed. The Notice of
Opposition/Rectification Application as filed by the Applicant is
untenable in the eye of Law. The Applicant has intentionally filed the
instant Notice of Opposition/Rectification Application in order to harass
the Registered Proprietor and/or to destroy the business empire created
by the Registered Proprietor. Suffice it for the purpose of this
correspondence to state that the claims and allegations made in the
Notice of Opposition/Rectification Application of the Applicant are
false, baseless having no factual support. However the Applicant is
advised to produce the authentic documents support of their statements
of allegation as alleged in these Paragraphs.

19. Paragraph Nos. I, II, III (1) to (4)

The statement of allegations made in these Paragraphs of the Notice of
Opposition/Rectification Application are denied and disputed except
for those which are matter of record only. The contents of these
Paragraphs contain information about the Applicant’s company and the
Registered Proprietor is not privy to the same, hence the said contents
are denied due to want of knowledge. The Registered Proprietor is not
aware about the incorporation of the Applicant’s Company. The
Registered Proprietor is not aware if Cargil was founded in 1865 or not.
As per claims made, the Applicant is engaged in the business of
sourcing, storing, trading processing and distributing of agricultural
commodities such as grains and oilseeds including wheat, corn, rice,
pulses, millets, oilseeds, barley, sorghum, soybean, rapeseed, and their
derivatives as well as vegetables oils and meals and cotton; animal
nutrition products including complete feed, premixes, base mixes,
concentrates or additives for targeting aquaculture, cattle, dairy and
poultry; a wide range of indigenous and imported edible oils, fats and
flour including sunflower oil, soybean oil, olive oil, flavoured oils and
vanaspati; bio-industrial products; and metals whereas the Registered

Proprietor has adopted the Trade Mark to use in

respect of Isabgol and Tea. As per the description of goods, the business
of the Applicant and Registered Proprietor is entirely different from
each other. The Registered Proprietor is not aware about the various
awards won by the Applicant and the same is irrelevant to the subject
proceedings. Suffice it for the purpose of this correspondence to state
that the claims and allegations made in the Notice of
Opposition/Rectification Application of the Applicant are false, baseless
having no factual support. However the Applicant is advised to produce
the authentic documents support of their statements of allegation as
alleged in these Paragraphs.

20. Paragraph Nos. III (5) to (11)

The statement of allegations made in these Paragraphs of the Notice of
Opposition/Rectification Application are denied and disputed except
for those which are matter of record only. It is denied for want of
knowledge that the Applicant’s operations started in the year 1987 in
India. As per the Applicant’s own claim, they have been carrying their
business in respect of refined oils, food ingredients, grain and oilseeds,
cotton, animal nutrition, industrial specialties, and trade structured
finance in India. The Applicant has no existence in the business of
Isabgol and Tea. The Registered Proprietor is not aware about various
other Trade Marks adopted by the Applicant. The same is also irrelevant
to the subject proceeding as the Marks GEMINI, SWEEKAR,
LEONARDO OLIVE OIL, RATH and SUNFLOWER are phonetically,
structurally and visually different from the Registered Proprietor’s Mark
 . It is denied that the Applicant is the sole owner,
exclusive proprietor, prior adopter and user of the alleged mark/label
“NATURE FRESH”. Even if the said claim is accepted, though denied,
the goods of the Registered Proprietor are entirely different from the
Applicant’s goods. The Registered Proprietor is using the Trade Mark

in respect of Isabgol and Tea. The Applicant is not

active in the business of Isabgol and Tea. The questions of confusion and
deception as alleged by the Applicant are false, fictitious and calculated.
Even in the case of M/s Nandhini Deluxe v/s M/s Karnataka Co-
operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd (Civil Appeal Nos. 2937-2942
of 2018 with Civil Appeal No. 2943-2944 of 2018), the Supreme Court
of India (Supreme Court) has re-affirmed that a proprietor of a
trademark cannot enjoy monopoly over an entire class heading.

The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in “Vishnudas

Kushandas v the Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd. and Anr. (366 1996
SCALE (5)267)”, which laid down the principle that a proprietor of
a trademark cannot be permitted to enjoy monopoly over the entire
class of goods, particularly when he is not using the said trademark
in respect of certain other goods falling under the same class. The
Respondent no. 1 Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. obtained registration
of its mark ‘CHARMINAR’ with respect to “manufactured tobacco”
in the years 1942 and 1955 bearing numbers 9951 and 170427
respectively as per the rules laid down by the Trademarks Act, 1940
and the Trademarks Act, 1950 respectively. The Appellant, Vishnu
Das were using the same mark ‘CHARMINAR’ since 1973 in respect
of “quiwam” and “zarda” and applied for the registration of the
same under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the
Trade Marks Rules, 1959.

The Apex Court asserted that even though products like cigarettes,
cigars etc. and products like quiwam, zarda etc. both comprise of
tobacco, they are entirely different in terms of their characteristics.
Despite the fact that both of them are classified under the same
umbrella term, “manufactured tobacco”, they are distinct products
having separate entities.

The Apex Court went on the express its view that if a manufacturer
has a registered trademark falling under a broad classification but
it does not have a bona fide intention of manufacturing other
articles falling under such a broad classification, then, the
manufacturer should be restrained from enjoying a monopoly over
all such articles by rectifying its registration so as to confine the
same to specific articles which concern the manufacturer. It is fair
to register only those articles for which registration is intended by
the manufacturer. If such rectification is not allowed, the
manufacturer may start trafficking in trademarks. The Registered
Proprietor reserves their right to produce evidential documents in this
regard.

It is denied that the Applicant adopted and used the mark ‘NATURE

FRESH’ at least as early as the year 1988. It is submitted that the

Applicant’s very first Trade Mark ‘Nature Fresh (LABEL)’ under Trade

Mark No. 1024533 in class 29 was filed on dated 09/07/2001 as proposed

to be used basis whereas the Registered Proprietor has adopted the

Mark on 01/01/2001 and has been using the mark

since the adoption. The Applicant is claiming a false user date just to
mislead the Ld. Registrar. It is pertinent to mention that the word

‘NATURE FRESH’ is a highly descriptive word merely describing

natural and fresh qualities common in the food and beverage industry,

and lacks inherent distinctiveness. Various person and entities are using

the word ‘NATURE FRESH’ in respect of their goods and services and

no person should be in the position to claim exclusive right over such

descriptive word. Despite claims of extensive efforts, the Applicant has

failed to substantiate those consumers exclusively associate ‘NATURE

FRESH’ with their products beyond its descriptive meaning. Moreover,

while quality control is crucial for maintaining product standards, it

does not transform a descriptive term into a distinctive trademark.

Therefore, the Applicant’s claim that the ‘NATURE FRESH’ Marks have

acquired goodwill, reputation, and distinctiveness sufficient for

exclusive trademark protection is unsubstantiated under trademark law.

Suffice it for the purpose of this correspondence to state that the claims

and allegations made in the Notice of Opposition/Rectification

Application of the Applicant are false, baseless having no factual

support. However the Applicant is advised to produce the authentic

documents support of their statements of allegation as alleged in these

Paragraphs.

21. Paragraph Nos. III (12) to (17)

The statement of allegations made in these Paragraphs of the Notice of

Opposition/Rectification Application are denied and disputed except

for those which are matter of record only. The Registered Proprietor is

not concerned about the awards and positions earned by the Applicant.

It is submitted that the Registered Proprietor is the prior adopter and

user of the Mark in respect of Isabgol and Tea.

The goods of the Applicant is entirely different from the goods of the

Registered Proprietor. Hence any usage and/or advertisement of any

other mark in respect of entirely different goods do not give any

exclusive right to the Applicant in the subject proceedings. Recently,

in Cutis Biotech v. Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., the Bombay High

Court upheld the order of the lower court in rejecting interim

injunction to the plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendant from

using the mark ‘Covishield’ for COVID-19 Vaccines. In light of the

application for registration of the trademark ‘Covishield’ under Class

5 by both the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court stated that even if

the plaintiff were to succeed in such registration, the same would be

in respect of the disinfectant spray, sanitizer etc. produced by the

plaintiff and not of such nature that grants monopoly for all goods

under Class 5. It was held that as the product of the defendant is

vaccines and defendant has no intention to use the mark for

manufacture products similar to those produced by the plaintiff, there

is no scope of misrepresentation or confusion in the mind of people

about the plaintiff’s product. The Registered Proprietor reserves their

right to produce evidential documents in this regard.

Furthermore as much the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. v Quality Agro
Mills Pvt. Ltd. [CS (OS) 3305/2012], is concerned, the same is denied on
the ground that in that case the defendant was using their Mark in
respect of Wheat Flour. The goods of the defendant were same as that of
the plaintiff. Therefore the order was passed in the favour of the
plaintiff.

But in present case the goods of the Registered Proprietor is entirely

different from Applicant’s goods.
Further in regard with the Applicant’s claim that the Mark ‘NATURE

FRESH’ of the Applicant was declared well-known in the case Cargill

India Pvt. Ltd. vs Quality Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. [CS (OS) 3305/2012], it is

submitted that the said order and declaration was made on or after the

year 2012 whereas the Registered Proprietor has adopted the Mark on

01/01/2001 when the Mark of the Applicant was not declared well-

known.

In the matter of Prem Biyani vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises, it was

held that “While the first respondent's mark might be considered

well-known today, this was not necessarily the case in 1997. The

concept of a well-known mark was not recognized under the Trade

Marks Act, 1958, which was in force at the time of the appellant's

application. The declaration of a mark as well-known has significant

implications, but it must be applied judiciously. The court's decision

reinforces that the well-known status of a mark should not

automatically preclude the registration of other similar marks,

especially when they pertain to different classes or can coexist with

conditions”.

The Registered Proprietor has filed their Trade Mark on dated

11/05/2007 with a user date of 01/01/2001. The said Trade Mark was
examined and an examination report was issued on dated 25/09/2007. It
is to be noted that the Marks of the Applicant were also cited in the
Registered Proprietor’s examination report but it was nowhere cited that
the Applicant’s Mark are well-known Marks. Even the said Marks of the
Applicant were opposed at the time of filing of Registered Proprietor’s
Mark. Suffice it for the purpose of this correspondence to state that the
claims and allegations made in the Notice of Opposition/Rectification
Application of the Applicant are false, baseless having no factual
support. However the Applicant is advised to produce the authentic
documents support of their statements of allegation as alleged in these
Paragraphs.

22. Paragraph Nos. III (18) to (21)

The statement of allegations made in these Paragraphs of the Notice of

Opposition/Rectification Application are denied and disputed except

for those which are matter of record only. It is denied that the Trade
Mark is deceptively and confusingly similar to the

Applicant’s Marks. It is pertinent to note that in the Rectification

Application the Applicant is claiming user date since 1988 in respect

of Trade Mark ‘NATURE FRESH’ whereas as per the Trade Mark

Registry, the Applicant has adopted the Trade Mark on dated

09/07/2001 as proposed to be used. The very first Trade Mark of the

Applicant under Trade Mark No. 1024533 in class 29 was filed on

dated 09/07/2001 as proposed to be used basis.

The Applicant is trying to mislead the Learned Registrar by stating
such false and fabricated claims.

Even the said Trade Mark “Nature Fresh (LABEL)” under Trade Mark

No. 1024533 in class 29 of the Applicant was opposed by the Dabur

India Limited on the grounds that the Mark “NATURE FRESH” is

highly generic and the Applicant cannot claim monopoly right over

such generic and descriptive word. It is also to be noted that in the

Counter Statement of the said Opposition the Applicant has

mentioned that they have adopted the Mark “Nature Fresh (LABEL)”

in June 2000.

Even the Applicant has submitted their sales turnover from the year
2000-2001 only.
Hence it is clear that the Applicant has not adopted the Trade Mark
“NATURE FRESH” in the year 1988 but subsequent to the adoption of
the Registered Proprietor’s Mark. The Registered Proprietor is the
prior adopter and prior and bonafide user of the Trade Mark
 in respect of Isabgol and Tea since 01/01/2001. As
per the records of the Trade Mark Registry, the Registered Proprietor is
the prior adopter and prior user of the Mark as compared to the
Applicant. Even the section 34 of Trade Mark Acts clearly provides that
the rights of a prior user shall be protected under the Act from being
violated by a registered user, i.e., the registered proprietor of an
identical or deceptively similar mark granted registration for
identical/similar goods/services. As it is stated below:

Section 34 in the Trade Marks Act, 1999:-

Saving for vested rights.—Nothing in this Act shall entitle the
proprietor or a registered user of registered trade mark to interfere
with or restrain the use by any person of a trade mark identical with or
nearly resembling it in relation to goods or services in relation to
which that person or a predecessor in title of his has continuously
used that trade mark from a date prior—(a) to the use of the first-
mentioned trade mark in relation to those goods or services be the
proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or (b) to the date of registration
of the first-mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services in
the name of the proprietor of a predecessor in title of his; whichever is
the earlier, and the Registrar shall not refuse (on such use being proved),
to register the second mentioned trade mark by reason only of the
registration of the first mentioned trade mark. It is settled principal as
per ruling by Delhi High Court in the case of Peps Industries Private
Limited Vs. Kurlon Limited that “the rights of the prior user are
protected under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 even in the
absence of registration of Trade Mark”.

The said Trade Mark of the Registered Proprietor is unique, novel and
distinctive Mark in respect of their said goods and services. The
Registered Proprietor has been using their Trade Mark
 continuously and extensively in respect of the
said goods and services since adoption and the same has gained
tremendous goodwill and reputation over the period. The Registered
Proprietor has incurred, spent and invested sufficient amount of money,
labour, skill, time, energy and expertise in establishing their products

namely under the said Trade Mark . The said

Trade Mark has already become precious

Business Properties of the Registered Proprietor. It is to be noted that

the Trade Mark of the Registered Proprietor is

composite, distinctive and novel and distinctive device Mark in
respect of their said goods and should be taken as a whole in all
perspective. Suffice it for the purpose of this correspondence to state
that the claims and allegations made in the Notice of
Opposition/Rectification Application of the Applicant are false, baseless
having no factual support. However the Applicant is advised to produce
the authentic documents support of their statements of allegation as
alleged in these Paragraphs.

23. Paragraph Nos. III (22) to (24)

The statement of allegations made in these Paragraphs of the Notice of
Opposition/Rectification Application are denied and disputed except
for those which are matter of record only. It is denied that the Trade

Mark is not eligible for registration. It is denied

that the Registered Proprietor wants to take advantage and to trade
upon the alleged reputation of the Applicant. The Registered Proprietor
has no intention to take advantage of others goodwill and reputation in
the Trade. The Registered Proprietor has already earned handsome
goodwill and reputation in the Trade under the Mark
 in respect of Isabgol and Tea. It is further said and
submitted that the Registered Proprietor has created their own brands
through extensive marketing and by maintaining non-compromising
quality standards and do not need to lean or take help of other's Trade
Marks to build the goodwill in respect of our said goods. Hence the very
purpose of opposing this subject registration seems to be ‘worthless’ and
seems to have done just to embarrass the Registered Proprietor with no
hidden reason lying therein. The questions of confusion and deception
as alleged by the Applicant are false, fictitious and fabricated. The
general customers will never be confused while purchasing the
Registered Proprietor’s goods and the Applicant’s goods under the
competing Marks. The Registered Proprietor firmly believes that even a
visually impaired person can logically conclude that there is nothing
common between these two marks and the goods and hence there can
hardly be any room for confusion or deception. It is denied that the
Registered Proprietor is not a lawful proprietor/owner of the Trade
Mark under the provision of section 18 of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is denied that the Registered Proprietor has
copied the Trade Mark of the Applicant.

It is pertinent to note that the Registered Proprietor is a leading and

well established manufacturer and trader of Isabgol and Tea under the

distinctive and composite Trade Mark . On

01/01/2001 the Registered Proprietor honestly and with bonafide

intention conceived and adopted the Mark to use

in respect of Isabgol and Tea being in Class 30. The Registered
Proprietor has been using the Trade Mark
continuously and extensively in course of Trade since the adoption. Due
to continuous use and extensive advertisement, the Mark of the
Registered Proprietor has become distinctive. The People common to
the Trade and Public at Large are solely associated with the Registered
Proprietor’s Mark for Isabgol and Tea being included in Class 30 in
respect of their superior quality products. The questions of confusion
and deception as alleged by the Applicant are not admitted. The claims
and allegations as alleged by the Applicant are false, fictitious and
calculated and also irrelevant to the instant proceeding. It is denied that
the Trade mark was wrongly registered without due process of law. It is
submitted that the Trade Mark was Registered by the Ld.
Registrar/Asst. Registrar of Trade Marks after completing the necessary
formalities and verifying the similar and identical Marks available in the
Register of Trade Marks. Suffice it for the purpose of this
correspondence to state that the claims and allegations made in the
Notice of Opposition/Rectification Application of the Applicant are
false, baseless having no factual support. However the Applicant is
advised to produce the authentic documents support of their statements
of allegation as alleged in these Paragraphs.

24. Here we humbly submit that the Registered Proprietor possesses

full confidence on the verdict of the Ld. Registrar and we deem the way
the Applicant of the Notice of Opposition/Rectification Application
opined over the actions of the Trade Marks Registry, is unethical and a
sign of less or no confidence upon the judgment of the Ld. Registrar. In
view of the above facts the Registered Proprietor is able to establish the
honesty and purity of the said Trade Mark and the Applicant has failed
to make out a valid case against the Registered Proprietor. All
allegations made in this rectification of the Applicant are false,
fabricated and baseless. The Prayer made by the Applicant is not
admitted. The Registered Proprietor possesses full confidence on the
verdict of the Ld. Registrar and deems the way the Applicant of the
Rectification Application opined over the actions of the Trade Marks
Registry, is unethical and a sign of less or no confidence upon the
judgment of the Ld. Registrar.
Hence it is respectfully prayed that—

i) The Rectification/Cancellation Application may kindly be

dismissed;

ii) The Registered Trade Mark No. 1557559 in Class-30 in

respect of the said Trade Mark of the Registered Proprietor should
be remained in the Register of Trade Marks;

iii) Costs of and/or incidental to the said application be paid by

the Applicant.