Paris Convention

 

 

Paris Convention

 

Article-6

We have already 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. Para-10

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

Paris Convention

 

Paris
Convention


Article 6—

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. The
objector has not got his mark registered in this country. So he also cannot
claim any protection under the Convention.

Samah Razor
Blades Industries ltd vs Supermax International Pvt Ltd and. another 51 DLR
237.

 

Paris Convention

Paris Convention

 

Article-6

We have
already 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

Article-6

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.