The purely generic, non-distinctive and descriptive word “clickastro” will never get registered trademark status. If trademark registry accidentally provide that, it will be totally unfair. Many people will come with objection then. One among the numerous genuine reason is explained below
A registered trademark can help the trademark owner prevent unauthorized use of the mark and create a valuable intangible asset for the company. However, the trademark registration process is long typically taking anywhere between 12-18 months to know the final status of a filed trademark application. Since, the trademark application process takes such a long time, many businesses begin building a brand around a mark while the trademark application is still pending. If the trademark application is finally approved and the mark is registered, then the efforts spent on brand building is protected. However, if for some reason the mark is not registered, then there is a likelihood for the brand to be under threat. Hence, we look at some of the top reasons for trademark application rejection, so these mistakes can be avoided while choosing a business name or tradename.
Generic Terms cannot be trademarked
No. Generic terms can never be trademarked, no matter how well known a particular name might be. Commonly used words, phrases or terms cannot be trademarked. For example, a company cannot trademark the word “CHAIR” to sell chairs. Since, chair is a generic term for the product, one company cannot be given the right to use the generic term exclusively.
Generic marks are denied protection because they are so descriptive that they cannot acquire distinctivess. Generic matter is not registrable. Generic terms are not protectable because they merely identify “the genus of which the particular product is a species. The generic “name of a product answers the question ‘What are you?” ‘ ‘For instance, the term “automobile,” unlike “Civic” or “Accord,” indicates that the product is “a … 4-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation on streets and roadways and commonly propelled by an internal-combustion engine…. “” Generic terms are “free for all to use. ‘Hence, no one person is granted the exclusive right to the generic name of any item and any possibility of a monopoly is thwarted. Ultimately, fair competition demands that all producers of the same product be permitted to use the product’s generic name in order to efficiently describe their goods.The genericness doctrine in trademark law, however, maintains that a generic term-i.e., one that names the good or service itself-is precluded from protection because of the inherent risk of monopolizing a word vital to describing or naming the product sold. Hence, words like “table” and “chair” are not protected for a manufacturer of these items because its competitors would be unfairly disadvantaged.
No. Generic terms can never be trademarked, no matter how well known a particular name might be.
See examples below.
“Wayanad Vineyards” for a winery located in Wayanad, Not Eligible for Trademark Registration.
“Video Buyer’s Guide” for a magazine., Not Eligible for Trademark Registration.
“Web Communications” for consulting in the area of Internet communications., Not Eligible for Trademark Registration.
“Cable Ty” for ties used to bind cables., Not Eligible for Trademark Registration.
“Carryout Cafe” for a cafe offering take-out food., Not Eligible for Trademark Registration.
“Replica Gaslights” for replicas of historical gaslight fixtures., Not Eligible for Trademark Registration.
“Numerology” cannot be trademarked by a Numerology service provider as it is purely generic.
A particular advocate / lawyer cannot apply to trademark registry to get the word or combination of generic words like “Plaintiff” or “Defendant” or “Plaint” a registered trademark and make the same as his own property. The words like “Plaintiff” or “Defendant” or “Plaint” are free to use by everyone especially the members in that particular working class. He will not get trademark registration eventhough he can apply to trademark registry.
“Astroclick” or “Clickastro” or “Astrology” or “Jathakam” or so on for Astrology service providers cannot be given registered trademark status as these are purely generic in nature.
Anyone can apply to trademark registry to get trademark registration for the words “Astroclick” or “Clickastro” or “Astrology” or “jathakam” or so on. The trademark registry will never give trademark registration for such words because those are purely generic. The word “clickastro” or “astroclick” or combination of the two purely generic terms “click” and “astro” have been used by the public for the past 3 or 4 decades as per internet records. The words “clickastro”or “astroclick” are not at all unique or distictive creations. These words are used by the general public and the people involved in astrology community.
If we search in google with keyword “astroclick” or “clickastro” which are of the same meaning, you will find 38,100 search results for the keyword “astroclick” and 23,400 search results for the keyword “clickastro“. So many people are using the purely generic words “click”, “astro”, “clickastro”, “astroclick” so on in their business and blogs for many decades now.
Today on 7th January 2017 when I ( Dathu Mohan ) type this post the premium domain name astro.click is available for purchase for a premium price Rs.26,529.93/- through the very famous website godaddy.com. The yearly renewal charge also Rs.26,529.93/-. Please read why the domain name astro.click is holding a premium status or what type of name hold premium status. The reason is mentioned clearly Premium Domain Names are more valuable than other domains because they are based on common words or phrases people often use in their online searches. Premium Domain Names are not eligible for order-level discounts. So it made very clear the combination of the words “click” and “astro” together to constitute a clearly generic word or phrase “clickastro” or “astroclick” has been used by the general public in their daily online searches. As we know already trademark registry will not give registered trademark status for a generic word or phrase, no matter how well known a particular name might be. Another example indianastrologysoftware.com is owned and managed by Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd. If the Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd. apply to trademark registry to get the phrase “INDIAN ASTROLOGY SOFTWARE” a registered trademark they will never get it, because it is a combination of purely generic keyword phrase, searched by lot of people in India and abroad through Google, yahoo and other search engines. .
Being a purely generic word anyone can purchase domain names consisting of words “click”, “astro”, “clickastro”, “astroclick” and so on. If I purchase a domain name astroclick.com, it does not mean that no one else can purchase same domain name with different TLD(Top Level Domain) such as astroclick.biz. Examples of some of the popular TLDs include .com, .org, .net, .gov, .biz and .edu. Top-level domain (TLD) refers to the last segment of a domain name, or the part that follows immediately after the “dot” symbol.
A generic term is one that refers to the “genus” or class of which the particular product is a “species.” For example, “apple” is a generic term for the fruit and therefore orchards cannot trademark the term “apple.” But “apple” is not a species of the genus “computer”—using “apple” as a species of “computer” falls within Judge Friendly’s “arbitrary or fanciful” category and is presumptively protectable by trademark law.
In Advertise.com v. AOL Advertising, Inc., AOL sued Advertising.com for trademark infringement and obtained an injunction. Advertising.com appealed to the Ninth Circuit on grounds AOL’s trademark was generic and therefore invalid. The court imposed a presumption that AOL’s trademark was valid because it was registered. The burden was on defendant Advertise.com to prove “genericness” through substantial evidence. Advertise.com met this burden by showing consumers widely accept that an “advertising dot com” is a Web site that provides online advertising services.
A generic term categorizes by conveying information about the nature or class of an article. This is often known as the “who-are-you/what-are you” test. Advertise.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc. employed this test to determine whether the composite was a distinct mark:
A mark answers the buyer’s questions ‘What are you all about?’ ‘Who are you?’ ‘Where do you come from? ‘Who vouches for you?’ A generic name of the product answers the question ‘What are you?’ Applying this test strongly suggested that ADVERTISING.COM is generic. When any online advertising company, including AOL’s competitors, is asked the question ‘what are you?’ it would be entirely appropriate for the company to respond ‘an advertising.com’ or ‘an advertising dot-com.’
A very few examples of same and similar already registered domain names owned by different people from different parts of the world in the vast cyber space, which has combination of the two words “click” and “astro” are listed below.
clickastro.co was in the hands of Nedin Webexim Pvt Ltd
It goes on, this is only a small list. Anyone dealing or not dealing in astrology can use the word “clickastro” or “astroclick” in their business or blogs or in their domain names as much as they like. No one can obtain absolute ownership for the words “astroclick” or “clickastro”. Other than using in domain names so many people are using the combination “clickastro” or “astroclick” their blogs and websites and offline also. These are purely generic keywords.
The objection raised by Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai, in all the examination reports corresponding to the application numbers 2706675(class 9), 2706676(class 9), 2706677(class 45), 2706678(class 45) is that “ The trade marks-which are devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person “. That was correct reasonable objection by Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai because as we know already the word “clickastro” is purely generic, descriptive and non distinctive. Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. is using the purely generic, descriptive and non distinctive keyword as part of their domain name only, in rest of the places they are using it, only with a view to get trademark registration, through wrong route( misrepresenting facts, providing false statements etc etc) as we understood already.
The Astro-Vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd knew very well that just by claiming that they run a website named “Clickastro.com”, they will never get a trademark registration for the purely generic, descriptive and non distinctive word “Clickastro”. So the Astro-Vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd (AVFT) has lied to Trademark Registry, Chennai, that they are engaged in production of software under its unique mark “CLICKASTRO” composed of the unique and inventive combination of the words ‘CLICK’ and ‘ASTRO’. In reality the plaintiff is engaged in sales of astrology softwares and astrology reports under its mark “Astro-vision” on account of that the plaintiff applied to Trademark Registry, Chennai to get the mark “Astro-vision” a registered trademark, as a result of that the “Astro-vision” got registered trademark status with trademark number “1035510” under class 9 and the status is “Registered” till date. The real fact is that ‘CLICK’ or ‘ASTRO’ or “CLICKASTRO” all three are purely generic, descriptive and non distinctive kewords. These words cannot get trademark registration. As the Astro-Vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd (AVFT) claims, the combination of ‘CLICK’ and ‘ASTRO’ to “CLICKASTRO” is not an unique and inventive combination created by them. As per internet records the general public started to use the combination of “Click” and “Astro” minimum 15 years before Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd. thought about creating clickastro.com.
If we go through the four names of the domain owned by Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd, we can see astro-vision.com, clickastro.com ( includes verb and noun also ), indianastrologysoftware.com and astrovisiononline.com all four are generic, descriptive and non distictive domain names, which means not eligible to get a registered trademark status.
Meaning of astro vision in malayalam language ജ്യോതിഷ ദര്ശനം
Meaning of click astro in malayalam language ക്ലിക്ക് ചെയ്യുക ജോതിഷം
Meaning of indian astrology software in malayalam language ഇന്ത്യൻ ജ്യോതിഷ സോഫ്റ്റ്വെയർ
Meaning of astro vision online in malayalam language ഓൺലൈൻ ജ്യോതിഷ ദർശനം
So now the question is why generic keyword domain names are so valuable to business marketing.
Some companies are sitting on the sidelines, sticking to their outdated traditional marketing strategies, other companies are quickly gobbling up all the best generic domain names related to their products, services, and locations. Here we explain the power of keyword domains and the role they can play in strategic marketing. an some advantages and disadvantages of making/trying to make generic keywords as brand names or domain names.
Generic traffic domains can drive hundreds or thousands of potential new clients to a company’s website on a daily basis, at no additional cost, and you do not want these clients to land on your competitor’s website. Descriptive domains are a huge advantage in competition.
Deliver instant identification and understanding of the products and services you offer
Simplify your advertising and marketing message
Instantly associate your business with its area of expertise
Strengthen your PPC performance; it has been shown that when the domain name matches the search term exactly it leads to an increase in CTR, more clicks and a reduction in click cost
Search Engine Ranking – Websites with keyword-rich domains have better chances of being listed at top positions in search engine results.
Business Growth – Generic domains can help you reach a larger audience, expand into new markets and attract new clients.
If you own a generic domain potential clients instantly know that you’re serious about what you’re doing.
If you have a generic domain name, expect Trademark Protection on it including the TLD extension but not without it.
Suppose I purchased domain names “astrology.com”, “astrology.in”, “astrology.net”, “horoscope.com”, “horoscope.in” and “horoscope.net” and spent crores of rupees on account of advertising, it does not mean rest of the public are restricted from owning and managing the same names with the rest available TLDs like “horoscope.biz”, “horoscope.us”, astrology.uk and so on numerous other available domain names. The reason is the words we mentioned are purely generic.
The Trademark Registry will never give registration for such purely generic kewords. For instance we can search in http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/eregister/eregister.aspx with keyword ASTROLOGY, only one search result will come in pending mode ie, “ASTROLOGY” . Someone has applied for the mark ASTROLOGY with quotes, not for ASTROLOGY without quotes with application number 2296005 (CLASS – 45), date of application is 07/03/2012, the applicant is using the word since 03/01/1996. Even being such a long term user the trademark registry did not give Trademark Registration and the same is in objected status till date, the sole reason is, its purely generic.
Another example for instance we can search in http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/eregister/eregister.aspx with keyword ASTROVISION, you will never find an application by anyone to get the word ASTROVISION a registered trademark even though the word has been used by uncountable number of people offline and in cyberspace, the sole reason is it is purely generic word or entirety of two purely generic keywords namely “ASTRO” and “VISION“. You will find “ASTRO-VISION” is applied for, by Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd. and they got Trademark registration also for the same. “ASTRO-VISION“ is different from ASTROVISION. “ASTRO-VISION“ was not generic when applied for to the trademark registry. Another reason for getting the “ASTRO-VISION“ a registered trademark is the presence of the special character “–“ between the two purely generic words “ASTRO“ and “VISION“
The word ASTROVISION and ASTRO VISION has been used by a large group in public, So no Trademark registry will give trademark registration for a particular applicant, as it will be totally unfair. For CLICKASTRO or ASTROCLICK also same result if applied to trademark registry. Anyone can apply for trademark registration even for purely generic keyword or phrases, it does not mean in any sense as long as their application is in trademark registry, they are the absolute owners for that particular mark and they can sue those people whom they found to be a strong threat or competitor or opponent for their business, that is totally unfair and unlawful, according to me that type of act is offensive.
In the SBL Limited v. Himalaya Drug Company 1997 (17) PTC 540 case law in which Justice R.C. Lahoti, as his Lordship Chief Justice of India then was, spoke for the Bench in these words – “Nobody can claim exclusive right to use any generic word, abbreviation, or acronym which has become publici jurisdiction. In the trade of drugs it is common practice to name a drug by the name of the organ or ailment which it treats or the main ingredient of the drug. Such an organ ailment or ingredient being public jurisdiction or generic cannot be owned by anyone for use as a trademark”. The jural message, therefore, is clear and unequivocal. If a party chooses to use a generic, descriptive, laudatory or common word, it must realize that it will not be accorded exclusivity in the use of such words.
Being purely generic is not the only one reason why the word “clickastro” will not get registered trademark status. There are numerous other reasons. Can be explained to the trademark authority or any government authority if someone ask me to reveal my available knowledge in this particular matter.
In the website www.inta.org of International Trademark Association (INTA) in which India is a member country, clearly states that “Trademarks and service marks are proper adjectives. Not nouns. Not verbs. A mark should always be used as an adjective qualifying a ge-neric noun that defines the product or service. A mark is a company brand name, not a product or service itself. “
Above being generic the words “click” and “astro” are verb/noun and noun respectively.
So there is no chance for the purely generic word “clickastro” to get a registered trademark status, no trademark registry will do so, because it will be unfair if they do so and the same will be against trademark laws.
There are numerous other reasons why the mark “clickastro” wont get a registered trademark status.
Descriptive Terms cannot be trademarked
Words that are commonly used to describe a product can also not be trademarked as it would be considered a descriptive term. For example, the mark COLD is likely to be rejected for marketing beverages as being descriptive. If a company is given the exclusively right to market its beverages using the term COLD, it would be unfair. Hence, such descriptive terms for products or services cannot be trademarked.A mark is descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, or feature of particular goods or services. To be deemed descriptive, a mark must provide reasonably accurate or distinct knowledge of the product’s characteristics. Examples of descriptive marks are “Tintz ‘ for hair coloring formula, “Spex” for optician services, and “Chap Stick” for skin preparation in a stick.
“Merely descriptive” terms immediately, and with some specificity, describe a feature, function, use, purpose, ingredient, or characteristic of goods or services.
Although the line between this type of mark and a generic mark is a fine one, there is a difference:
Generic marks name the product itself; its type, or category.
Merely descriptive marks hone in to describe a feature or use of the product rather than the product itself.
“Breadspred” as a mark for jellies and jams is merely descriptive because a characteristic of jellies and jams is that they can be spread on bread.
“Mouseklip” is merely descriptive of clips used to hold a mouse cord in position on a desk.
“Lasergraft” is merely descriptive of surgical hair transplantation services because a feature of the service is the use of lasers to graft hair.
“Featherlite” as a mark for gloves is merely descriptive because minimal weight was a characteristic of the gloves’ lining.
“Net Entertainment” is merely descriptive of magazines covering interactive entertainment on the Internet (or “net”).
“Web Graphics” for a company specializing in Internet graphics is merely descriptive, despite the fact that the phrase also describes graphics resembling or inspired by a spider’s web.
“Limo Care” is merely descriptive of automotive repair services, even though applicant repairs more than limousines.
Creative misspellings do not make a descriptive term distinctive. “C-Thru” is equally as descriptive of transparent rulers as “see through,” the words it misspells.
Non Distinctive Terms cannot be trademarked
‘what makes a trade mark distinctive?’ is whatever makes it capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another.
No trademark registry will give a mark registered trademark status, in the below case.
“A company cannot posses neither two brand names nor two registered trade marks at the same time for the same type of products or services rendered ”
So because of that reason also the word “clickastro” will not get registered trademark status. To know more about the fact please see the below details available in the website of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, owned and managed by Government of India.
From the above details we can clearly understand that Trademark “Category” for application number 1035510 is “Series”. The applicant put “Series” as category because they want to use a part of their company name “Astro-Vision” as brand name and as prefix with all their astrology software names. I came to see Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt.Ltd. lied to the Trademark Registry, Chennai, in their reply to the examination report they stated “they are engaged in production of software under its mark CLICKASTRO”. This lie they stated in reply to the examination reports corresponding to application number “2706676”and “2706677”. This type of lie they stated in different place to force the trademark registry to get the purely generic, descriptive and non distinctive a registered trademark status. I came to see recently, to get the word “clickastro” a registered trademark they are replacing their real software brand name “Astro-Vision” with the word “clickastro”.I have solid proof of the changes., I will show that in a judicial proceeding in front of Honourable Court or Trademark Registry, Chennai, if they demand.
Below I have listed 8 astrology flagship softwares of Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. which uses Astro-Vision, their brand name for astrology softwares as suffix with the names of astrology softwares.
I (Dathu Mohan) am licensee of all the above listed 8 flagship softwares of Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd.. I became the licensee after purchasing the Astrosuite from Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. by paying Rs.28,875/-.
Now Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. sued against me alleging that I infringed their trademark by using the word “Astro-Vision” in my business. How dare they made such an idiotic and fraudulent move. They prayed to court that I should not be allowed to use their registered trademark “Astro-Vision” in my business, no Respectable Court nor God will hear their pray, because I am their Licensee. To take license I paid Rs.28,875/- to them. They are doing this unfair business practice because they fear that I may become a threat for their business. This is totally unfair and unlawful and an offensive seeking move from the Licensor Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. I wish the court will give such a punishment to the Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. that no other licensee or dealer will face such a worse situation after purchasing their softwares products for which the price ranges from US$ 164 to US$ 6750 means approximately Rs.11,000/- to Rs.4,60,000/- per software.
To my eye this type of acts by Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. amounts to big level fraud, cheating and breach of trust.
Below you can see the screenshot and link of a complaint (one among numerous) made by another licensee of Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd in the year 2013.
On 10th May 2002 Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd purchased the domain indianastrologysoftware.com to showcase their wide range of astrology softwares to the general public, that time according to me there was no threat from the licensor to the licensee and vice versa, especially in cyberspace but all changed when the licensor entered into the business seriously to sell the same reports which the licensees sell through the premium softwares purchased from the licensor Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd. The licensor must not have entered into the business to sell the astrology reports also, instead of selling only the astrology softwares which generate the exact same reports.
When the licensor found me (owner of clickastro.biz) as a threat to their business they did the same thing(sued) what they did to Nedin Webexim Pvt. Ltd. The licensor did not reveal the material fact that either Nedin Webexim Pvt. Ltd. nor me are their licensee, who purchased premium softwares under business package for a huge sum of money with life time validity.
This is “A” class cheating and fraud from the part of licensor.
If the licensor feels the licensee is becoming a threat to them, then they will play all worst & unfair games or business tactics, this is not worst business tactics, but something well above that.
In my email inbox daily I used to get very attractive emails like the below screenshot from AVFT (Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd.), as a part of their online marketing campaign to sell their Astrology softwares online, showcased in their website named “indianastrologysoftware.com”. As a result of such email campaigns generated by AVFT, like any other educated unemployed youth, I got attracted and contacted AVFT and used the demo version of their flagship software package and I was interested to purchase the Astrosuite 2.0 business package(full version) to do astrology business which cost Rs.28,875/-. I(Only Breadwinner in my family, my father is recovering from 2 attacks and 3 strokes,lost his speech ability, mother house wife) have been financially very tight so I opt to purchase the software on installment basis, but for that also I had no money to pay even Rs.10,875/- as downpayment to purchase the Astrosuite business pckage astrology software from AVFT. Finally on the month of September 2015 I arranged money to pay the downpayment amount of Rs.10,875/- to purchase Astrosuite business suite which is the flagship product of AVFT. On 11th September 2015 I paid the downpayment to obtain the Astrosuite business package and continously for the next 3 months I paid Rs.6000/- each. As I paid the full installment amount without any default, on the month of December 2015 I receieved the original bill from AVFT by virtue of which I owned the Astrosuite business suite with lifetime validity, also I worked hard day and night continuously to compete with the countless big giants running astrology business in cyber space. I have invested my time, money and hard work with the fuel of dream, optimistic mindset and positive hopes. But all I got in return was the unlawful original suit sent by the licensor AVFT. This is a very small part of the worse story what they did against my business. They do not know how much deep they hurt me, how much pain I am feeling even when writing these words. If they hurt me more I will end everything, an online astrology business was my last hope. They destroyed all my efforts now I have to start from the very begining.I have proof for every thing more than they expect.
In the OS.No.3 of 2016 made by Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd.(plaintiff) against me (Dathu Mohan : Defendant) the plaintiff stated in their 4th, 5th and 6th paragraph/points that Astro-vision earned reputation as a quality service provider of astrological software. These software are considered the de facto standard in the field of astrology. As there was a huge demand from all over India, plaintiff started branches including Mumbai, Hyderabad, Chennai, Coimbatore and Karnataka. Thus with wide distribution networks, “Astro-vision” has become a synonym for astrological software. Along with wide distribution networks, the plaintiff also spent large amounts of money in advertisements, strengthening the goodwill and reputation of the trademark “Astro-vision”.
So by now it is too much clear that plaintiff lied to Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai as reply to the examination report sent to them, that “they are engaged in production of software under its mark CLICKASTRO”. This lie they stated in reply to the examination reports corresponding to application number “2706676” and “2706677”. This type of lie they stated in different place to force the trademark registry to get the purely generic, descriptive and non distinctive keyword “clickastro” a registered trademark status. They tell this lie of fame which is not actually present.
The Plaintiff / Licensor of flagship software, Astrosuite ( Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd ) in their legal suit against me ( Dathu Mohan : Licensee of the software package / Defendant) they produced in the Honorable court the stay order on trademark abandoned which involved their applications also. The link to stay order is http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/News/224_1_publicNotice_11April2016.pdf . But according to me the reality is that the Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd has no right to enjoy the benefits of stay order. The reason I have explained below. That may be one of the main reason why those 4 applications is in objected status till date.
It is very clear from the Public Notice that, such a notice was published, as a result of the complaints received by the complainants who did not get justice from trademark registry. Their complaint is mentioned in the below quoted paragraph, extracted from the public notice.
“Subsequently some complaints were received claiming that applications had been treated as abandoned even though the reply on behalf of the applicants were submitted but the same were not considered by the office; some complaints were also received to the effect that the examination reports containing office objections were not received by the applicants or their authorized agents in time due to which the response could not be filed and the applications have been wrongfully treated as abandoned.”
So Astro-Vision Futuretech Pvt. Ltd in this suit has no reason to enjoy the positive sides of the public notice. In all the 4 abandoned letters issued by the Trademark Registry, Chennai to the plaintiff they have quoted clearly, the examination report was published in the website of Trademark Registry of India on 21st August 2015 and the hard copy of the examination report was sent to the plaintiff from Trademark Registry, Chennai on 13th January 2016.
It was clearly mentioned in the examination report that if no reply is received or a request for a hearing is applied for within the stipulated time, the said application shall be treated to have been abandoned for lack of prosecution under Section 132 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and thereafter the status of the application in the computer database shall reflect the factual position.
As the plaintiff did not respond to the examination report within the stipulated time ( within one month ) even after receiving the hard copy of the examination report by post, the status of the 4 application automatically changed fully against the plaintiff. In the abandon report to the plaintiff trademark Registry clearly mentioned as no response to the examination report has been received so far either mentioning the applicant’s comments on office objections or requesting for hearing. The application is therefore deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 38(5) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 and the status of the application is changed accordingly in the records of the Trade Marks Registry.
So this public notice is in favour of the applicants who did not get justice from Indian Trademark Registry, but not at all in favour of the applicants like the plaintiff who got double justice. The plaintiff lied to the Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai in their reply to the examination report sent on 29th March 2016, that they recieved the examination report only on 9th March 2016. The reply to the examination report sent by the plaintiff to the Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai was received within 5 days, wheras the examination report sent by the Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai to the plaintiff took 58 to 60 days according to the plaintiff. A thorough investigation is required to know the truth. If the plaintiff was right then its ok, they can wait till the Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai declare their applications rejected because of the generic, non distinctive and descriptive characteristics of the applied marks. On the other hand if the findings of the probe shows that the plaintiff has lied to the Registrar of Trademark Registry, Chennai as well as the the Honourable District Court at Kollam with the wrong and fraudulent intention for making their application and other related details still in database of trademark registry and used the same to defeat the defendant in this case in an unlawful and illegal manner. If the probe try to find the date in which the examination report is receieved by the post office in Kerala and in which date the post man handed over the examination report to the plaintiff rather than only checking in which date the plaintiff claims they recieve the examination report. This request by defendant is because the plaintiff do follow a unfair business practise in all sorts of ways possible against the competitors also.
After I purchased the domain clickastro.biz the plaintiff started to advertise so much with the name “clickastro” highlighted in all their advertisement invoices just to mislead the honorable court they are spending crores of rupees to advertise clickastro.com site. All these are unfair business practices against law. The plaintiff is doing all such things just to show the big fame clickastro possess, but in reality no such fame they possess.
My complaints against Astro-vision Futuretech Pvt Ltd. did not even reach half way. But too much I am not going to disclose now because the plaintiff will play as per that in the court if not this may be in Honorable Ernakulam District Court. So I am concluding my post here.
To be continued….