We have nalready found that the mark of the objector-respondent was not in well known use in this country. For attracting Article 6 of the Paris Convention there must be proof of well-known or wide use which is very much lacking in the case of the objector. Furthermore, the objector has not got his mark registered in this country. So he now cannot claim any protection under Article 6 of the Convention. Our law has not given him any right to pray for such protection.

Samah Razor Blades Industries Ltd. Vs. M/S. Supermax International Pvt. Ltd. 7 BLT (HCD)-70


Whether Press release by world Trade Organization has affected any provisions of Paris convention

Article 6 of the Paris Convention could be made applicable in the matter of protection of Industrial property on two prime considerations. One is that the party claiming protection under article 6 of the Paris Convention must prove that they have used the mark in the country where the protection is sought and the other is that they have got registration in the country of origin prior to the registration obtained by a party in a country of the union where the application for removal or rectification has been filed. In the instant case having examined the materials on record it is evident that the respondent No.2 got the registration in India in the year 1985 which is much prior to the date
of registration of the same mark in the name of the appellant. And about the user there are sufficient materials on record —In that regard our opinion is that this kind of Press release by World Trade Organization has not affected any provisions of Paris Convention of which 100 countries of the World are signatories by becoming members.

Md. Mofidul Haque Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors 15 BLT (HCD) 258.