Nina Bhavnagri v Parle Products Pvt Ltd

This matter concerned an opposition to the registration of a trade mark, brought by Nina Bhavnagri (the opponent) against Parle Products Pvt Ltd (the applicant). The dispute arose from the applicant's request for the removal of the trade mark from the register. The decision was made by T. E. Williams, a Hearing Officer acting under delegation from the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the opponent had demonstrated commercial use of the trade mark within the relevant period, which was the three years ending on 14 September 2008. The applicant contended that the opponent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of such use, thereby justifying the removal of the trade mark from the register.

The Hearing Officer found that the evidence presented by the opponent was largely unsubstantiated and, at times, self-contradictory, particularly concerning the period after 2000 when the parties' trading relationship soured. While the opponent provided historical background regarding her adoption and use of the trade mark prior to 2000, documentation relating to the relevant period was characterised as "long on assertion and short on objective proof." Specifically, documents purportedly showing customer orders were found to be illegible, lacking clear evidence of the trade mark in question, and, where dates were added, they fell outside the relevant period. The Hearing Officer also considered the provisions of sections 8(3) and (4) of the relevant Act concerning authorised use of a trade mark, which hinge on the owner exercising control over the usage. The opponent's actions were found to fall "well short of anything that could reasonably amount to control."

Consequently, the Hearing Officer concluded that the necessary conditions for the removal of the trade mark had been established, and those for its retention had not. The Hearing Officer directed that the trade mark be removed from the register one month from the date of the decision, with a provision for the removal to be stayed if a notice of appeal was filed. The Hearing Officer also directed that the opponent pay the costs of the applicant, to the extent set out in the regulations.