The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company … vs Glorious Investments Limited And Anr on 1 August, 2026

    0
    8
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Calcutta High Court

    The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company … vs Glorious Investments Limited And Anr on 1 August, 2026

    Author: Arindam Mukherjee

    Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

    OIPD-3
                                      ORDER SHEET
    
    
                                     IPDATM/8/2023
                                 IA NO.GA-COM/1/2025
    
                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION
    
    
    THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY (ORA/22/2018/TM/KOL)
                               VS.
              GLORIOUS INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND ANR.
    
    
    BEFORE:
    The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
    Date: 1st August, 2026.
    
                                Ms. Rajeshwari Prasad, Advocate for the applicant Sumitomo
                                                                 Rubber Industries Limited.
    
          Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Mr. Ayan Dutta, Ms.
                     Sanskriti Agarwal, Mr. Piyush Jain, Ms. Drishti Banerjee, Advocates for
                                                                           respondent no.1.

    RE : IPDATM/8/2023

    The Court : IPDATM 8 of 2023 is an application for rectification of the

    SPONSORED

    trade mark registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited

    (respondent no.1). This application was initially filed before the Intellectual

    Property Appellate Board (in short ‘IPAB’). Subsequently with the

    promulgation of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 this rectification

    application has got transferred to this Court and has been numbered as

    IPDATM 8 of 2023.

    The respondent no.1 has taken out an application for rejection and/or

    dismissal of the said rectification application which is IA No.GA-COM 1 of

    2025. Subsequently Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited claiming to have
    2

    been assigned the mark by the Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company (the

    petitioner in the rectification application) filed an application for

    substitution being IA No. GA-COM/2/2025. The substitution application

    was disposed of by an order dated 2nd February, 2026 by allowing the same

    in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the Master’s Summons. The prayers (a),

    (b) and (c) are set out hereunder for ready reference :

    a) The Applicant be permitted to be substituted in the name and stead

    of the Petitioner herein in view of the Trademark Assignment

    Agreement dated 17th July, 2025.

    b) Application being I.P.D.A.T.M. No. 8 of 2023 be amended in red ink

    in the manner as shown in the proposed amended application

    annexed to the affidavit in support of the master summons and

    marked as Annexure ‘B’;

    c) The department of this Hon’ble Court be directed to carry out the

    amendment in the Application as shown in Annexure “B” to the

    affidavit in support of the Master’s Summons on the basis of the

    orders to be passed herein within 4 weeks or within such time as

    this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;

    It will appear from prayer (c) of the Master’s Summons which was

    allowed by the order dated 2nd February, 2026 that the amendment was to

    be carried out within 4 weeks from the date of the order or within such time

    as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

    It appears that the amendment has not been carried out as yet

    though the time to carry out the same has expired. This has left a technical

    glitch as no order which may be passed in IPDATM 8 of 2023 or in GA-
    3

    COM/1/2025 will be passed in the amended cause title which will lead to

    further complication in drawing up and completing the order if the

    applications are disposed of on the basis of the unamended cause title. The

    order dated 2nd February, 2026 did not provide for any specific direction

    upon the advocate for the applicant of the substitution application or the

    original applicant to communicate the order dated 2nd February, 2026 to the

    department for carrying out the amendment.

    The obligation, therefore, is cast on the department to carry out such

    amendment but for some reasons or the other the same has not been

    carried out.

    In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the department is directed

    to carry out the amendment as directed by the order dated 2nd February,

    2026 by 10th August, 2026. The extension of time to carry out the

    amendment is formal in nature under the peculiar facts and circumstances

    of the case and will not amount to modification of the order dated 2nd

    February, 2026.

    The respondent no.1 has already used an affidavit to this rectification

    application and the original petitioner has also used a reply thereto. The

    substituted applicant now prays for using an affidavit in aid of the

    rectification application. It is settled law that the substituted applicant has

    to adopt the case made out by the original applicant/petitioner. There is no

    need to file additional affidavit unless there is any substantial change in

    facts which are required to be placed on record. The only change in

    circumstances as recorded in the order dated 2nd February, 2026 is the

    claim of the substituted applicant of the mark being assigned by the original
    4

    petitioner vide agreement dated 17th July, 2025 and another agreement

    dated 7th January, 2025. In such circumstances the substituted applicant is

    entitled to bring such limited facts on record by filing a supplementary

    affidavit.

    Let a supplementary affidavit to this rectification application be filed

    by the substituted applicant by 12th August, 2026; reply thereto, if any, be

    filed by 23rd August, 2026. Let IPDATM 8 of 2023 appear in the list on 25th

    August, 2026.

    RE: GA-COM/1/2025

    This application for rejection of the rectification application is awaiting

    final adjudication after completion of affidavits. Affidavit-in-opposition has

    already been filed by the original applicant (Goodyear Tire And Rubber

    Company). The applicant in this application (respondent no.1) has already

    used an affidavit-in-reply thereto. The substituted applicant now intends to

    file an affidavit-in-opposition. It is settled law that the substituted party has

    to adhere to the defence, if any already made out by the original applicant.

    Unless there is any substantial change in circumstances, no fresh

    opposition/objection is required from the substituted applicant for

    adjudication of the issue. The only change in circumstances as recorded in

    the order dated 2nd February, 2026 is the claim of the substituted applicant

    of the mark being assigned by the original petitioner vide agreement dated

    17th July, 2025 and another agreement dated 7th January, 2025.

    In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let affidavit-in-opposition by

    the substituted applicant be filed by 12th August, 2026; reply thereto, if any,
    5

    be filed by 23rd August, 2026. Let this application appear in the list on 25th

    August, 2026.

    (ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

    pa



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here