IPR Services Provider Since 2007
Call Us
Follow Us :        Subscribe   Find us on Facebook   View Tm- India's profile on LinkedIn   Follow us on Twitter   View Tm- India's profile on Pinterest



Trademark News



No Trademark or Copyright for Yoga, Pranic Healing Asanas, Tells HC


January 14, 2014 - Limited rights over yoga and pranic exercises, which are copied of very old technique of yoga in India, cannot be claimed under the Copyright Act, the Delhi High Court has apprehended. The court made the explanation while rejecting the appeal of Philippines-based Institute for Inner Studies seeking to hold back some persons from teaching the 'asanas' (postures) claimed to be developed by the originator of the institute. The court relied upon the place of law on the theme in the US and noted that the court there had starved of the protection to Yoga asanas in case of Bikram Choudhary who is also teaching modern yoga techniques in the US.

A bench of Justice Manmohan Singh also held that the term 'Pranic Healing' cannot be dominated as trademark by the institute. "The expression 'Pranic healing' as on the date of the application for the registration was prima facie non distinctive and was the name of the art or technique of doing exercise which was a feature of Yoga. "The expression was not competent of distinguishing the services of the applicant from others due to its wide spread utilize in the field dating back from centuries ago," the bench said in its 150-page judgment. The court conveyed the judgment on a petition filed by the Institute, which was established by Late Samson Lim Choachuy, Master Choa Kok Sui, on April 27, 1987 and has trusts in different cities in India and the sub-continent. The institute had moved the high court seeking prohibitory orders against one Charlotte Anderson and others from practicing pranic healing and conducting courses of the asanas adapted by the Master "without proper guidelines and issuing certificates or using literature" of the Master."

The trade marks which have secured by the plaintiffs in India are all protected post the year 2000 as is marked from the list. "If the expression Pranic Healing was the name of the art or technique of Yoga in the year 1906 finding place in the books in the field of Yoga, it prima facie emerges to be extremely doubtful as to how the expression is either intrinsically distinctive or for that matter able of distinguishing the goods of one person from that of another. "Having not made an ingenuous statement as to proprietorship of the mark pranic healing, the plaintiffs have secured the registration of the expression from the Registrar of the trade mark without informing about the right proprietorship of the mark applied for on the date of the application.

India Makes A Big Record of Increase in Patent Filings


Global patent filings in 2012 augmented at its strongest rate in just about two decades as industrial-design registration serrated its best-ever rate of growth, a report says. Patent filings universal grew by 9.2% in 2012, instead of the fastest growth witnessed in the past 18 years, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization, with India recording 3.9% growth.

Following a 3.9% cut in 2009, patent filings internationally have now recovered strongly, with speeding up growth rates such as 7.6% in 2010, 8.1% in 2011 and 9.2% in 2012.

The development was led by a sturdy growth in filings from China. China tops the ranking for both the source (filings by China) and the destination (filed in China) for the four types of IP (patents, utility models, trademarks and industrial designs). Of the top five IP offices worldwide, the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO) was single in recording double-digit growth for each of the four types of IP. Among the top 20 IP offices, SIPO (+24%) saw the fastest augmentation in filings in 2012, followed by the offices of New Zealand (+14.3%), Mexico (+9%), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, +7.8%), and the Russian Federation (+6.8%). Quite a lot of offices of middle-income countries, such as Brazil (+5.1%), India (+3.9%) and South Africa (+2.7%), also reported escalation in filings.

Post Registration Also Drives at the Indian Trademark Registry


Looking to the accumulation of matters pending for post registration modifications, the Indian Trademark Registry has taken an idea to begin a special drive throughout the months of December 2013 and January 2014, for the removal of recordal of post registration changes requests. This drive will also distress itself with trademark assignments, which have taken place, but are waiting recordal with the Registrar.

Hereunder is a list of diverse forms with their efficacy, which will be taken up beneath this notification:
  • TM-17: Applications for the certificates of the Registrar under Section 40(2) with reference to proposed assignment of registered trademarks, rule 77.
  • TM-19: Applications for the approval by the Registrar under Section 41 of proposed assignment, or of transmission of a trademark, resulting in exclusive rights in different persons for different parts of India, rule 77.
  • TM-20: Applications for directions for the advertisement of assignments of trademarks otherwise than in connection with the goodwill of businesses. Section 42, rule 74(1)
  • TM-23: Joint requests by registered proprietors and transferees to register transferees as subsequent proprietors of trademarks upon devolution of title. Section 45, rule 68.
  • TM-24: Requests to register subsequent proprietors of trademarks upon devolution of title. Section 45, rule 68.
  • TM-33: Requests to enter changes of names or descriptions of registered proprietors (or registered users) of trademarks, upon the Register. Section 58, rules 91 & 97.
  • TM-34: Requests for alteration of the addresses of the principal places of businesses or of residences in India or the addresses in the home countries in the Register of Trade Marks. Section 58, rules 91, 96 & 97.
  • TM-35: Applications by registered proprietors of trademarks for cancellation of entries thereof in the register. Section 58 (1)(c), rule 97.
  • TM-36: Applications by registered proprietors of trademarks to strike out goods or services from those for which the trademarks are registered. Section 58(1) (d), rule 97.
  • TM-38: Applications by registered proprietors under section 59(1) for addition to or alteration of registered trademarks, rule 98.
  • TM-42: Requests to amend or amend the deposited regulations governing the use of collective marks or to alter the deposited regulation of a certification trademarks. Section 66 or 74(2), rules 132(a) & 140.
  • TM-43: Applications for removal of collective marks or cancellation of the registration of certification trademarks from the Register. Section 68 & 77 and rules 92, 133 & 139.
  • TM-50: Forms of requests by registered proprietors or registered users of trademark, who have no principal place of business in India to enter, alter or substitute an address for service in India as part of their registration Rules 91, 96 & 97.
To evade confusion amid the proprietors/owners, the Trademark Registry enlightens that matters shall be taken up in the order of registered trademark numbers and in the case of a single request for more than one registered trademark in an application, the registration number of the first mark mentioned shall be measured. The Registry has known additional clarification that, in case any request occupies more than one jurisdiction then it shall be looked into by the office having jurisdiction with respect to the first trademark declared in the request.

The concerned Proprietors/authorized agents are required to appear before the proper officer with the following documents:
  1. A statement of case indicating sequence of changes relating to the registered trademark(s);
  2. An authentic copy of all the requests for recordal of post registration changes (along with fee receipt), if any, which has not been brought on record;
  3. An authentic copy of the assignment deed or the document on the basis of which the change is requested;
  4. An affidavit to the effect that no litigation is pending in respect of the assignment/transmission mentioned in the request and
  5. An authentic copy of the latest PA/GPA in favor of the agent.
A list of concerned officers authorized to deal with the applications enclosed under the notification has been published on 25 November, 2013. The applications have been chosen to the Ahmadabad, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai jurisdictions. The Trademark Registry has also affirmed that no separate hearing notice will be issued to the proprietors or their authorized agents who are covered under this notification.

IPAB Rejects India's AB Textiles' Pleas to Use of Trademark 'Sony'


The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), in its order over a plea filed by Japanese electronics major Sony Corporation, has repudiated the registration of the trademark 'abt Sony' by AB Textiles, a Kolkata-based firm. The order appears after a petition was filed by Sony Kabushiki Kaisa, also trading as Sony Corporation, against the judgment of the deputy registrar of trademarks, Kolkata, authorizing AB Textiles to register the trademark 'abt Sony' and refusing Sony Corporation's opponent against it.

AB Textiles has registered the trademark below Class 25 for its brand of ladies and gents undergarments. IPAB's vice chairman S Usha and technical member (Trademarks) V Ravi permitted the appeal filed by Sony Corporation, declining registration of the trade mark under question by Purushottam Agarwal and Ashok Agarwal, trading as AB Textiles. The board came down seriously on the decision of the deputy registrar in saying no the Japanese firm's opposition and agreeing to the textile firm to register the trade mark.

"It is apparent the respondent was trying to take iniquitous advantage of the famous mark Sony to the harm of the reputation of the appellants and is against the sincere practice in industrial or commercial matters," said the order. It also observed the necessary features of the respondent's mark 'abt Sony' contain the whole of appellants mark 'Sony' with 'abt' used as a prefix in coincidence with Sony, which is simply an alibi. The public and consumer will inquire for Sony garments and not 'abt' probably thinking it originates from Sony trade mark owners.

The main proposal of both the marks pivots on Sony, it added. The expression 'abt' in the apparel firm's brand is resulting from the trading style AB Textiles. The trademark claimed by AB Textiles was with esteem to the goods including undergarments for ladies and men's undergarments for sale in the West Bengal and Assam.

Nirma Loses Trademark, Cannot Use for Proposed Metal Products


The IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board), taking out the Gujarat-based soaps and detergent monster Nirma's trademark for its planned metal products, destined the company's "excessive monopolistic" attitude. It, however, permitted the trademark for its other products such as detergents and other industrial goods.

As per the Mumbai-based Nirmal Industrial Controls Pvt Ltd's appeal filed with IPAB, the Registrar of Trademarks, in 2001, rejected its application seeking Nirmal trademark for a few of its goods on the ground that it was opposed by Nirma Chemical Works as it was "deceivingly similar" to its trademark Nirma.

Nirmal Industrial Controls, producer of pressure control valves, regulators, safety shut-off systems and a variety of other metal devices, has in its petition filed with IPAB submitted that it has been utilizing the brand Nirmal since 1973. While, in 1984, Nirma applied for a trademark registration for its projected product type metal products as 'proposed mark' and was approved. Hence, Nirmal has required exclusion of Nirma's 'proposed mark'.

Advise for Nirma disagree that the trademark Nirma was registered for across 42 product categories counting the company's planned metal products under a particular class of the Copyright Act. As well, the brand was registered for its array of consumer and industrial products in 100 countries and millions of consumers are utilizing those products. And, the company has been planning to spread into some metal products, and registered the same trademark (Nirma).

The order released by the IPAB Vice-chairman, S. Usha, and Technical Member, V. Ravi, said that the particular Registrar has got it wrong. None of the documents submitted by Nirma illustrates any proof of use of the trademark 'Nirma' by the company for any metal goods that Nirmal looks for the trademark.

"Everyone discerns that Nirma is an extremely powerful and a superstar brand. But the carry out of the respondent presents too much monopolistic problems based on an absolutist place taken by the registry." The order also supposed that such a ruling by the Registrar increases obtrusive question mark on the conduct and knowledge of the official troubled. "The Registry should not act as a hand-holding delegate of well-known marks, but should stay focused on the virtues of each case".

Indian Patent Office to Employ 500 Over 5 Years to Clear Log Jam


The Indian patent office will hire 500 patent examiners more than the next five years as it intends to clear an excess of 1.3 lakh pending applications, a top official said. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Registrar of Geographical Indications, which allowances patents and trademarks, presently employs 80 patent examiners across four offices in the nation. Training is under way for 150 more to connect its rolls, patent office head Chaitanya Prasad said on Friday.

India obtained 43,000 patent applications, 8,300 applications for design innovation and 194,000 trademark applications in 2012-13, Prasad said on the sidelines of a meeting on intellectual property rights organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry. India has the maximum number of applications per patent examiner in the globe, Prasad said, anticipating newer recruits will lessen the burden on their colleagues, and facilitate bring down the time in use to process patent, design and trademark applications.

The patent office presently takes three to five years to clear applications in the request for examination category, which Prasad said will be compact to one year after the new recruits come on plank. The electrical and mechanical sectors account for the highest number of patents filed, followed by the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields, he said. Patent examiners usually hold a master's degree in engineering or the sciences and are categorized as Class I officers in the union government.

Trademark Registration Now Becomes Global With Madrid Protocol


Appear on Monday, the Madrid Protocol for a single window trademark registration for 90 member-countries will move toward into function. Measured an imperative development in the Indian as well as international trademark registration process, the Madrid administration would facilitate an applicant in India to apply online and get trademark protection in the 90 member-nations.

Broader protection of a trademark, single application for the entire Madrid member countries, single fee for trademark application, single language a" either English or French -- prompt and money-spinning registration process are the benefits of the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Trademarks, a said advocate P Sanjay Gandhi, who is the president of the Intellectual Property Rights Attorneys Association. India signed the set of rules on April 8 this year, carrying the Indian trademarks system in consistency with the Madrid Protocol.

As a first step, the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999 and the Rules to the Act, were adjusted in 2012, said Sanjay Gandhi. He said the four trademark registries in India such Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata a" can now begin getting the applications for international trademarks as per Madrid Protocol from July 8. The Intellectual Property Rights Attorneys Association will keep on spreading awareness about the Madrid Protocol and its procedures and allusions in India, a he said and expressed thanks to the Indian Intellectual Property Office for escorting in significant changes in the trademark law.

A Mumbai Firm Loses Trademark Rights over Maggi to Nestle


The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has reserved an order by the senior examiner of the Patent Office, agreeing to the application of a Mumbai-based corporation to register the 'Maggi' trademark for its household and kitchen uses. Nestle, the Swiss multinational monster, which has food products below the similar trade name, had filed the petition.

The early order of the senior examiner of trademarks, under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, had allowed the trademark application of Swaraj Industrial and Domestic Appliances Pvt Ltd to register the Maggi trademark for its domestic uses products. On Nestle's plea, IPAB vice-chairman S Usha and technical member V Ravi found the previous order was approved by the senior examiner of trademarks, whereas the registrar alone had the authority to hear and decide the subject. Hence, they said, order required legal validity. Also, it said, if the application for trademark registration was accepted, it was likely to cause confusion and dishonesty. And, that Swaraj hadn't sufficiently established a reason for taking up of the Maggi trademark.

Swaraj had filed applications for the Maggi trademark for different household articles and kitchen appliances, beside electronic apparatus. Trademark applications were filed for electric fans, heater, geysers, bulbs, electric components, gas lighters and heating utensils, as well. The senior patent examiner at the patent office said the goods in examination were relatively different from those of Nestle and the latter had also not verified that the trademark was well known.

In the IPAB, Nestle disputed the word Maggi was derived from the surname of Julius Maggi, founder of the trade of Nestle Group, carried on from 1886 up to 1947. And, that Nestle had sold products under the trademark in India since 1974. It had registered it in 1970 in India for a variety of food products. Yearly sales revenue on this head was Rs 673 crore in the year 2007, it added.

In respond, the advice for Swaraj said they'd been using the Maggi trademark since 1984 and the competitor's goods were dissimilar.

Kolkata's Haldiram Bhujiawala Shredded of Its Trademark


The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on Friday issued an order of the removal of trademark registration made in favor of the Kolkata based-Halidram Bhujiawala. Now Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, alone can utilize the trademark 'Halidram Bhujiawala'. The decision finished a long-drawn disagreement between family members of Ganga Bishan, who first received the trademark.

Decision in favor of the New Delhi-based firm, the Board embraces its Vice Chairman S. Usha and its member V. Ravi held that the owners of the Kolkata firm had not created any rational evidence and "therefore, the registration is in breach of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act."

The trademark 'Haldiram Bhujiawala' was taken on in 1941 by Bishan, in admiration of his business for the manufacture and sale of sweets, papads and snacks. Bishan prolonged his business to other cities, counting Kolkata. In 1972, an application for the trademark's registration was filed for the entire of India. Under a family array, Moolchand, one of Bishan's sons, was moving on business in all the territories, apart from West Bengal, while the family of another son, Rameshwar Lal, was permitted to do their business simply in West Bengal. Mr. Lal and his son Prabhu Shankar acquired the registration in 1980 for the similar goods for using the trademark in Kolkata.

After Lal's passing away, his sons endangered to open a retail outlet under the similar name in Karol Bagh, New Delhi in 1991. Distressed by the trademark remaining on the Registry of Trade Marks, Kolkata, the sons of Moolchand, the owners of Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, filed the application to revoke the registration made in 1980. Halidram, New Delhi, said the registration was mistakenly made and was enduring wrongly on the register.

The Board affirmed: "It is clear that Mr. Lal had not produced any proof to prove that the trademark had obtained distinctiveness. The trademark is neither individual, nor capable of being eminent as on the date of registration." Directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to terminate the trademark fixed in favor of Lal's sons, who own Haldiram Bhujiawala, Kolkata, the IPAB said that although they were aware of the applicant predecessors' use, they had concealed the fact and stated that they were the only firm using the trademark Haldiram Bhujiawala in Kolkata and that no other request was pending.

Gutkha & Pan Masala Manufacturer Wins Trademark Dispute


April 20, 2013 - When a Rajasthan-based gutkha and pan masala maker extended to UP and Delhi, he faces lots of violations regarding his trademark 'Mama'. The appeal of Rajan Jhiriwal, owner of 'Mama' brand gutkha, seeking to take out a rival brand's trademark was sustained by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in Chennai lately.

Justice S Usha and technical member V Ravi, in their fresh order, inquired the trademark registrar to withdraw the 'Mamaji' mark concern to Yogesh Kumar Aggarwal of Rajasthan. 'Mama' brand is an older trademark, disputed the counsel for Jhiriwal. "The sale of gutka in original form (mewa) based on traditional knowledge under the trademark 'Mama' was first begun by Kamal Jhiriwal since 1983," said the order. The elder Jhiriwal, the father of Rajan Jhiriwal, began his business in a small way. He used to support his sister's husband at his pan shop. "Kamal Jhiriwal was recognized as 'mama' by children of his sister and his friends also called him 'mama'," said the order. Soon, the whole town of Alwar in Rajasthan came to recognize of him by the name. So when he starts his own pan shop, he named it 'mama'.

"Due to its blend and flavor, gone after with the sanitized standard and packing the ready pan and gutka under 'Mama', it turned into the talk of the town," said the order. Rajan, who inherited the business, began marketing his product in New Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana in 2000. Soon, he observed that his trademark was infringed by the manufacturers of Mamaji Tambaku and approached the courts and the hearing.

As the owners of Mamaji couldn't verify that they have been using the trademark before the owners of Mama did, the tribunal came to the termination that Rajan Jhiriwal's claim is right and ordered the registrar to eliminate the Mamaji trademark.

India Unites With International Trademark System


April 09, 2013 - Minster of India for Commerce and Industry Anand Sharma on Monday submitted country's instrument of acquisition to the Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), carrying the total number of members of the international trademark system to 90. The pact enters into power with regard to India on July 8, 2013, according to a press release by the Administration. The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (Madrid system) provides trademark owners a cost effective, user friendly and aerodynamic means of protecting and managing their trademark listing internationally.

Minister Sharma told that "We accept that this instrument will provide a chance to Indian companies, which are accelerating their global footprint, to register trademarks in member countries of the Protocol through a single application, while also letting foreign companies a related permission."

WIPO Director General Francis Gurry accepted India's acquisition, noting that "India's accession to the Madrid system is a major marking in introducing us closer to changing the Madrid System into a system with sincerely planetary reach." He assumed that "India's involvement in the Madrid system gives brand owners around the world the power to widen their protection to the crucial Indian market, through a single, easy and cost-effective procedure."

India is the 14th of the G-20 economies to submit to the Madrid Protocol. Mr. Gurry said "India's accession to the international trademark system, as with the present accessions by Colombia, Mexico, New Zealand and Philippines, signals an era of epochal geographical expansion of the Madrid system, which offers greater welfare to right holders worldwide."

The Madrid system is equivalently attractive to galactic businesses as well as small and medium-sized organizations, which are the amplest users of the system. In the midst of present-day global economic conditions, the Madrid system has shown signs of strength, evidence of its rewards in protecting trademarks internationally. 2012 saw the swellest number of international trademark applications ever filed under the Madrid system, with 44,018 applications, or a 4.1 % gain compared to 2011. Moreover, a record number of 41,954 international registrations were recorded. Mr. Sharma also participated in a high level policy dialogue at WIPO, where he adressed on the subject "Innovation and Development: The Indian Experience." Members of the Geneva diplomatic community, featuring ambassadors, took part in the speech.

Apple In Discussions Over Brazil iPhone Trademark Disagreement


March 11, 2013 - Apple may be finished to coming to deal with the Brazilian company that possesses the rights to the name iPhone in that nation. Brazil's Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper has rumored that Apple and IGB Eletronica, the genitor company of Gradiente, have "decided to finish the court conflict" and are looking to ambit an agreement over the trademark iPhone.

The companies are told to be attempting a "peaceful settlement". The court case has been delayed for 30 days, according to our translation of Folha de Sao Paulo's report. Gradiente registered the name iPhone rearward in 2000, seven years earlier the iPhone established in 2007. That company revealed an Android iPhone in Brazil last year. Apple reasoned that Gradiente had left it overly late to release a good using the trademarked name. However the Brazilian National Industrial Property Institute ruled that Gradiente closely-held the name as they had registered it earlier. Apple is still allowed to usage the brand name.

As per the report, the two companies have been looking for a result to the issue outside of court. Apple has previously prescribed with a Chinese company that possessed the right to the iPad trademark. Apple paid Preview $60 million last year. The company also came to a deal with Cisco over the utilize of the name iPhone in the US. Apple is having a dreadful time in Brazil. The company is also being sued for unveiling the fourth generation iPad so soon after the third generation 'New iPad'. If Apple loses the lawsuit it may be strained to make up iPad 3 owners in the nation.

Patent Board Rules Go In Favor Of Natco Regarding Cancer Drug Case


An Indian board in Chennai has carry on a domestic pharmaceutical company's power to sell a non-proprietary edition of Bayer AG's cancer drug Nexavar at much inexpensive prices, but inflated the royalty it should give. Bayer has determined to challenge the judgment. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) expelled Bayer's pleas against a government decision in 2012 that permitted Natco Pharma to sell the non-proprietary version a monthly dose of this costs Rs 8,800 as conflicting to Bayer's price of Rs 2.8 lakh.

Bayer, Germany's leading drug-maker, said it would proceed to battle to overturn the judgment, which it said lessened the international patent system and vulnerable pharmaceutical research. Under a global Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) contract, countries can publicize mandatory licenses on certain drugs that are view as unaffordable to a large section of their populations. On Monday the board fired the petition, although it did send an order to Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 per cent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, a gain from the 6 per cent royalty that had previously been set. Also, the board penalized Natco Pharma Rs 50,000 for presenting erroneous facts throughout the legal proceedings. The amount would be given to a cancer treatment hospital, the board stated. Declaring the judgment, Justice Prabha Sridevan said the kidney and liver cancer drug should be acquirable at an affordable cost to everybody.

Bayer told in a statement it "strongly disagreed" with the decisions of the board, adding that it would look for to challenge it at the High Court in Mumbai. "The challenges faced by the Indian healthcare system have small or nothing to carry out with patents on pharmaceutic products as all products on India's needed drug list are not patented," the company said.

Natco Pharma Company Secretary M Adinarayana said to reporters the board had presented a "reasoned, detailed" judgment that could be "continuous in any court of law". In an apart case, Bayer has defendant another Indian drugmaker, Cipla, of violating its patent on Nexavar. Cipla had produced its generic version of Nexavar before Natco won the mandatory license. Cipla notch Natco's price in May last year and now sells the medicine at $124.56 for a month's dose. Among other reverses for Western drug companies, India has reneged patents given to Pfizer Inc's cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG's hepatitis C drug Pegasys and Merck & Co's asthma curing aerosol suspension preparation.

Under Armour Sues Trademark Infringement Against Nike


Under Armour wants to defend its "I will" motto. The athletic clothing manufacturer, based in Baltimore, has filed a trademark violation lawsuit against Nike, claiming its competitor has unsuitably used variations of the phrase in its merchandising.

Under Armour states that since late last year, Nike, settled in Portland, Oregon, has established an advertising run using phrases like "I will protect my home court," and "I will finish what I started."

Under Amour tells such use of "I will" is "expected to cause confusion, fault, and deceit." Under Amour said that it has been exploitation its "I will" phrase on hundreds of goods, packaging and several types of commercialism since as early as 1998. In an e-mail response to The Associated Press, Nike spokeswoman Mary Remuzzi decreased to statement at this time, saying the company just lettered of the lawsuit.

According to the papers, Under Armour is petitioning a permanent bid to bar Nike from using the "I will" phrase. It is also demands Nike to demolish all products, packaging and signs that use the same tagline. It also demands Nike to pay Under Armour all earnings arising from the use of the motto, and is search to recoup damages. The lawsuit was filed on Thursday in federal court in Baltimore.

FT & Times Group Battle on Trademark in SC Today


One of the largest legal battles in the history of publication, the two-decade old trademark disagreement between the UK's Financial Times and the Times of India group, will come up for hearing earlier the Supreme Court on Monday. This time, the fight for Financial Times Group is to get-go copy editions in India Financial Times Facsimile and FT Weekend Facsimile for which it had accepted clearance from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board ( FIPB) and in-principle support from the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) in 2009. However, the UK-based firm could not outset the editions here as Times Publishing House, a Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd (BCCL) firm, acquired a stay from a Karnataka court instantly after the Financial Times received the approvals. FT had shifted the apex court against this order.

The legal battle seems to be time-consuming. "It's the Indian legal system that is taking time. Nobody has any uncertainty of the ownership of the Financial Times brand," says Khozem Merchant, president, Pearson India, which have the Financial Times. According to the IPAB order, the trademark no longer consists to either Financial Times or BCCL. This matter, however, has been decreed by the Delhi High Court and a judgment is pending.

"We are struglling for the intellectual property rights (IPR)," says Merchant. But the issue appears to have moved beyond rightful IPR. Interestingly, in late 1980s, UK's Financial Times had get into into a self-complacent sharing arrangement with the Times of India Group. But, they parted ways later. The 20-year fight must have cost both the companies tens of crores of rupees as legal fees. The Financial Times could have averted the legal battle had it moved the local procedure for newspaper registration, says a lawyer who did not privation to named. "It's a flaw in the law," he adds. "The PRB Act determines the title under which a newspaper can be publicized here."

UK's Financial Times had a merchandising arrangement with Business Standard. The British publishing firm also had a 14 per cent stake in the paper, which it issued in 2008. According to the media perceiver quoted above, by the time this trademark conflict reaches its final verdict; it might be excessively late for Financial Times to carry out a print edition in India. However, Merchant is anticipative that Financial Times has a large scope in Indian market for its print version.

Samsung 'Trademark Infringement' Put Down Indian Traders in Dope Up


The Supreme Court has released notifications on a complaint filed by South Korea's Samsung Electronics in the opposition to the sale of imported Samsung-branded products without its legal authorization, an matter which has big inferences for trade and business in the nation.

The company demanded that such trades by traders was an infringement of its trademark, whilst local traders claimed they were under their rights to deal with goods legally bought overseas and imported into India. Samsung was described by senior advocate TR Andhyarujina, while Shyam Divan seemed on behalf of local traders who were importing and selling printers supporting the Samsung trademark without the company approval. A three-judge bench, directed by chief justice Altamas Kabir, issued the notifications which will have to responded to within four weeks.

Samsung had before sought an order from a lower court attempt an dictation restraining the traders from offending and thinning its trademarks, but failed. The Delhi High Court had on October 3, 2012, subordinate that local traders can do importation of goods heading a registered trademark into India and sell it advance without any authorization from the registered owner. It grasped that such sales were legal under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. But the company demanded that the HC had mistakenly interpreted the provender of the 1999 Act.

In its request, filed through K Hari Shankar and Associates, the company claimed that the court had unsuccessful to separate between domestic and overseas markets and that it had incorrectly applied the principle of global exhaustion to the Indian market. Under this principle, where symmetric imports are legal, it turns out to be an "extremely easy for cheaters to mix non-genuine goods with parallel imports and present them into the commercial line in India."

This rule, the company claimed, will also incised into domestic sales of the trademark proprietor, not only harmfully affecting authorized channels of commerce but also reducing its inducement to advance invest in the market. It will also have the harmful outcome of causing a loss to the economy and bond employment opportunities that can be made for the local people.

Ramky Enviro Gets Approval of Trademark


Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd of Hyderabad, India granted approval of trademark from Office of the trademark registry on the trademark RAMKY GROUP Towards Sustainable Growth. The depiction of the mark registered is management, treatment & disposal of any kind of wastes such as urban solid, industrial harmful, bio medical, electronic other wastes, recovering of materials such as paper, plastic, waste oil, solvent, batteries, glass, construction, operation continuation of waste water treatment plants, power invention from/using waste, waste derivative fuels, production of watery bio methane gas, power generation using LBM, renewable energy, R & D consultancy & manufacture of energy, treatment of any category of supplies. It comes below Class 40 Trademark classification and trademark application was filed on Oct 16, 2010. Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd is now using the name as RAMKY GROUP - Towards Sustainable Growth ever since Nov. 28, 1994.

Trademark Practices in India will Begin in February 2013


Entire business persons are expected to be conscious of and maintain labels on practices and procedures for accepting and protecting proper trademarks for their businesses. India has always been pioneered in well-known trademarks and their reputations. Global players need to recognize with the growth of India's trademark practices, which now stand with the trends in the United Kingdom and the United States. INTA, an India Project Team, invited members of the trademark community and international and Indian brand owners to join signature event arranged by INTA in charming Mumbai, to be held at the Trident Hotel, Nariman Point, on February 89, 2013.

Different from the earlier one-day India conferences, the INTA India Project Team has spread the conference over a day and a half on that time, to permit delegates to get a total viewpoint on changing trends and practices in the Indian trademarks system. On the opening day, attendees from different sectors will take part in their preference of an assortment of global Table Topics and will boost insights on what it worth to do business in India throughout the general session on key trademark processes in India. On the next day, most important and key experts from India and all over the world will talk about an array of topics, including forging and the job of social media, border control measures, addressing trademark disagreements through litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and the require for successful communique between in-house and outside advise.

India Withdraw Roche Hepatitis Patent


On Friday, an Indian panel cancels a patent granted to Swiss giant Roche for a hepatitis C drug, scoring the newest slow down for global pharmaceutical firms in the country's $12 billion medicine sell. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board inverted the patent honored by the Indian Patent Office to Hoffmann-La Roche's drug Pegasys, citing a require of confirmation that it was a "new class" of medicine. The decision represents one more propel to western drug firms in India that have been looking to the country of 1.2 billion people to increase sales but are concerned about patent protection and panic competition from its broad knockoffs. While Roche can still face up to the decision in India's courts, patients' sponsorship groups called the ruling a major victory.

"If we find the produce of lower-costing generic drugs, millions affecting from hepatitis C both in India and internationally will advantage," said patients' rights lawyer Anand Grover. "This is a grand win for hepatitis C patients," Grover told AFP. India is the world's foremost exporter and producer of low-priced, non-branded medicines mostly to other poor, developing countries. The patent petition board said on Friday it had found no testimony that Pegasys was a "new class" of drug. "In the ending, the creation is held to be clear," the board said, ordering the patent to be "put aside". The judgment was in reply to a petition against the patent suited by a Mumbai non-profit group, The Sankal Rehabilitation Trust, which aids drug users who regularly contract hepatitis C through make use of dirty needles.

Apple iPad may run into trademark trouble with Fujitsu


Apple's plan to call its new tablet computer the iPad may run into trademark problems with Fujitsu due to filing an older application for the name by Japanese computer maker Fujitsu. Fujitsu has sought a trademark on the name since 2003 for a hand-held computing device, according to the website of the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Apple's IPad may have a trademark problem with Fujitsu who sought to trademark the name since 2003 for a hand-held computing device. Apple has stated in its filings that it might be against Fujitsu's right to the name and has time until February 28, 2010 to file an objection. Fujitsu's lawyer Edward Pennington of Hanify & King in Washington said yesterday that "They possibly need to talk to us and we haven't had any direct communications with Apple. Apple filed extensions to oppose it and at the present it makes sense. Now we can see why they did." According to Apple's iPad trademark application, the mark would cover range of goods, including computers, , toys, papers and telecommunications."

NCAA tries to settle "Rosenblatt" Trademark Dispute


Talks are on to settle the trademark dispute over Omaha's Rosenblatt Stadium. The NCAA and Omaha's lawyers were inching towards reaching a fair decision over Omaha's plan to charge a fee to market the Rosenblatt name. The director for the College World Series for the NCAA, Dennis Poppe said that the deal was a cause of concern. He stated that "I think for somebody who has been here for 60 years to all of a sudden to start paying a royalty on something that has been the part of this great event." In a letter to Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle dated Monday, College World Series of Omaha President Jack Diesing argued that the city cannot claim exclusive rights to the name Rosenblatt and that the NCAA cannot be expected to seek permission to use the name.

McD's Loses Trademark Battle to Malaysia's 'McCurry'


The world's most popular fast food chain McDonald's has lost an eight-year legal battle to prevent a local Malaysian Indian restaurant 'McCurry' from using the "Mc" trademark in its name, with the country's highest court dismissing its plea. Malaysia's Federal Court, which ruled against McDonald's application also ordered the American food chain to pay RM 10,000 (Rs 130,000) cost to 'McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd'. "Our keen observation is that the questions posed by McDonald's were not properly framed and the court should dismiss the leave application," Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria said. Yesterday, the court had adjourned the case after finding questions raised by McDonald's lawyers unclear and asked that they be rephrased.

McDonald's, which has 185 outlets in Malaysia, filed a leave application in the apex court to challenge the Court of Appeal's April 29 ruling which said it was wrong to assume that McDonald's had a domination on the use of the prefix "Mc". Earlier, A High Court had ruled in favour of McDonald's but McCurry took the fight to the Court of Appeal. During the court hearings, McCurry said McDonald's could not claim monopoly or exclusive rights to the use of "Mc" as that prefix was broadly used around the world as surnames, particularly by people of Scottish origin.

SC seeks reply from Montblanc in trademark infringement case


The Supreme Court has issued a notice to German luxury brand Montblanc Simple GMBH on a petition filed by a Mumbai-based firm, which has been charged of infringing on the former's trademark. Add Corporation Ltd, which sells its pens under the brand 'ADD,' has challenged the Delhi High Court order, which restrained it from selling and manufacturing pens under the trademark Add Gel Spacewalker and Add Gel Goldtop. The High Court's order came after the German major alleged that Add Corp had infringed on its registered trademarks in India--'Starwalker', 'Miesterstruck' and '3-ring device.'

A Bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju sought reply from Montblanc after Add Corp approached the apex court for a stay on the High Court order on the ground that it was a prior user of its trademark Spacewalker and there was a vast difference between the products of the two companies. Stating that Montblanc cannot claim its 'three-ring device' as a trademark so as to hold back it from manufacturing and selling its pens under 'ADD' brand, Add Corp said its range of pens sold were priced at Rs 200 and Rs 340, whereas the Montblanc's Starwalker range sold under trademark Meisterstick and cost around Rs 14,250. Even the mode of payment and packaging, appearance and the customers were different and there was absolutely no likelihood of any confusion between the two products, it said.

Delhi HC directs Pepsico India to remove logo


The Delhi High Court directed the cola giant, PepsiCo India, to remove the picture of a snow-capped mountain from its packaged mineral water product Aquafina as it gives a misleading impression that the product is straight from the mountains.

A bench comprising Justices Mukul Mudgal and Manmohan directed the PepsiCo to remove the picture snow-capped mountain from the label of Aquafina within six months.

The court also directed to add the phrase ‘purity guaranteed’ as per the Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) to its label.

The picture suggested that the packaged mineral water, being manufactured and marketed by the company, had its origin in the mountain which created a misleading impression in the minds of public, the court said.

The court passed the direction on a petition filed by the BIS challenging a single bench’s order of the court, which had allowed the company to use its logo comprising the mountain’s picture on its water product.

Delhi High Cour refuses Hoffman relief in cancer drug matter

The Delhi High Courthas refused any relief to the Swiss pharma Company 'Hoffman La Roche' ,which sought restraining 'Cipla' from manufacturing and selling anti-Cancer drug 'Tarceva' stating that it was a violation of their patent's right.

Justice S Ravinder Bhat passed an interim order allowing 'Cipla' to continue making the drug as there is a huge price difference and would effect an enormous number of patients.

The court directed the Cipla company to maintain accounts of sales figures for calculation of damages to be awarded to 'Hoffman' if they succeed in the present case.

Taking note of the huge price difference between the products of two companies, the court said "the drug should be available in the market as many patients would be effected. The balance has to be titled in the favour of the people as compared to the Company's interest, the court said.

The Swiss company had approached the Delhi High Court after it found that Cipla was planning to launch a generic version of the drug, Tarceva(Erlotinib), in India and export the same to various countries.

The tablet formulation of "Erlotinib" is sold by 'Roche' under the trademark and name 'Tarceva' claiming to be benificial to the patients suffering from advanced or metastatic non small cell lung cancer.

The Swiss company had applied for grant of patent in respect of the drug and its process which was granted in February 2007 by the Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs, New Delhi and any use by other companies is violation of their rights, their lawyer said.

Cipla Company, however contended that this is a necessary drug and like most countries, an urgent licence can be issued for manufacture of the essential drugs. In India not many people can afford the Swiss formulation therefore the need to make the drug which was less in price was much in demand.

Important to educate judges on IPR: Justice Raveendran

9 June 2007

Judges dealing with cases relating to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) should acquire complete knowledge and skills on dealing with such cases as they are different in nature, a Supreme Court judge has said.

Inaugurating a 'Judges' Round Table on IPR', organised jointly by the Karnataka Judicial Academy, FICCI and Christ Law College, Justice R V Raveendran said it was important for the judges to know the 'historical importance' of IPR.

"You have to change your concept, change your mindset while dealing with different cases. You have to know the background of the IPR and when violated, its repercussions on the holder of the IPR, the economy and the nation as a whole. The types of evidences can be different. Clear knowledge in the field of Information Technology is important. Only then you can act promptly. If general rules are applied, then the accused may get away," he stressed.

Stating that workshops could help judges in dealing with cases of special importance, Justice Raveendran said, however, the judges had to be careful about the talks given by 'experts' who might have their own 'axe to grind'.

Sounding a warning, he said judges should never conclude the view point of an expert as always right, or that reputed companies never commit a mistake. "They could try to influence the judges as they will be working for someone, who would have their own interests to safeguard. The judges should not let them influence them. Expert opinions are fine, but public interest should be given the highest priority," he said.

He said the Judges should always realise that the 'legal side' of a case was always more important than the 'technical side'. "Always keep in mind that you are the master when it comes to the legal side," he noted.

Trademark Applications Under Madrid System Show Rise

March 2, 2004 (Indlaw)

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) received 23,872 trademark applications in 2003 under a procedure that facilitates the process of seeking trademark protection in multiple countries, known as the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks. This represents a 3% increase over 2002. The same year, 21,847 trademark registrations and 6,637 trademark renewals were recorded in the International Trademark Register. Germany topped the list of largest users for the eleventh year running with 4,999 international registrations (22.9%), followed by France (3,281 or 15%), Switzerland (2,204 or 10.1%) and countries of the Benelux-Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands (2,104 or 9.6%).

The International Trademark System, administered by WIPO, gives a trademark owner the possibility of having a mark protected in up to 74 countries by filing one application, in one language, with one set of fees, in one currency (Swiss francs). Thereafter, the international registration can be maintained and renewed through a single procedure. An international registration under the Madrid system produces the same effects as an application for registration of the mark made in each of the countries designated by the applicant. If protection is not refused by the trademark office of a designated country, the protection of the mark is the same as if it had been registered by that office. The system provides a cost-effective and efficient way for trademark holders to ensure protection for their marks in multiple countries through the filing of a single application.

The system is governed by two international treaties, namely the Madrid Agreement for the International Registration of Trademarks and the Madrid Protocol. The Madrid Protocol which became operational in 1996 introduced features, such as the ability to submit applications in English and extension of the period of notification of a refusal of trademark rights to 18 months, which made the system more flexible and attractive to a larger number of countries.

"In today's highly competitive marketplace, trademarks are an indispensable business tool which enables companies to effectively market and promote their products and services within both domestic and export markets" said Mr. Ernesto Rubio, WIPO Assistant Director General who oversees the International Trademark System. "WIPO's International Trademark Registration System is a cost-effective and efficient option for businesses seeking to protect their trademarks in multiple countries," he added.

Prospects for growth of the Madrid system are promising owing to recent developments. "The fact that the United States, the country with the largest trademark activity in the world, is now a member of the Madrid Protocol, the European Community's declared intention to join the system this year and the inclusion of Spanish as a working language means that many more businesses will reap the full benefits of this system," Mr. Rubio said.

The top twenty users of the Madrid System in 2003 were: Henkel (Germany), Novartis (Switzerland), Sanofi (France), Unilever (Netherlands), Janssen Pharmaceutica (Belgium), L'Oreal (France), Nestle (Switzerland), Bayer (Germany), , Siemens (Germany), ITM (France), Boehringer (Germany), Biofarma (France), Philips Electronics (Netherlands), BASF (Germany), Merck (France), Syngenta (Switzerland), Fiat (Italy), Kodak (France) and Bongrain (France) and Migros (Switzerland).

The United States of America joined the Madrid Protocol on November 2, 2003. Three other countries, namely Cyprus, Iran and the Republic of Korea, also acceded to this treaty in 2003, and one more, Croatia, did so in January 2004, bringing the number of countries party to the Protocol to 62 and total current membership of the Madrid System to 74.

In 2003, the European Community announced its intention to accede to the Madrid Protocol and the Madrid Union Assembly adopted amendments to the Madrid Regulations allowing for a link between the Community Trade Mark System and the International Trademark System to operate once the European Community joins the Madrid System. This is expected later this year.

In 2003, the Madrid Union Assembly also adopted Spanish as a working language of the Madrid Protocol, making the system more attractive, especially for Latin American nations, which are largely absent from its membership today. Trademark owners will be allowed to file international applications under the Protocol in Spanish as from April 1, 2004.

By the end of 2003, some 412,000 international trademark registrations, belonging to over 134,000 different trademark holders, were in force in the International Register. Those international registrations represented the equivalent of some 4.9 million national registrations, taking into account that, as an average, each international registration extends its effects to some 12 designated countries.(UNI)

Bottling company barred from using "similar" trademark

7 July 2007

The Delhi High Court has refrained a mineral water bottling company from using the somewhat similar name of an internationally-acclaimed scotch whisky, "VAT-69", for selling its products till the next date of hearing.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul directed proprietor of S M Enterprises (manufacturers) Samar Agarwal and Noida beverages pvt ltd, the wholesale distributer of the company, to stop the manufacture, advertisement, or sale of any product by using the trademark "WAT 67" or any other trademark similar to the trademark of the petitioner.

The court issued notices to both the defendants to present their cases on November 6.

The Netherlands-based company, Diageo brands B V had approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the defendants for permanant injunction for using, manufactururing, selling, advertising their trademark Vat 69, in any form, or any other similar trademark which was deceptive or confusing by their name.

Counsel for Diageo company, Chander M Lall contented that their product was an international brand of the finest blended scotch whisky sold worldwide.

S M Enterprises, a Delhi-based company, which used their established trademark and manufactured packed drinking water with the trademark "WAT-69". The label placed on the water bottle has similar colour combination and design which gave an impression of being manufactured by the same company foreign company.

Mr Lall contended that the brand VAT-69 got its trademark first registered in 1989 by WIlliam Sanderson And Son Ltd and later on it was transferred to Diago Brands B V company, which filed this suit in the court.

Mr Lall contended that the brand VAT 69 was well recognised across the world. The company makes other alcoholic beverages by the brand name of Johnie Walker, Black and White, White Horse and Haig.

Any person or company using their name in any deceptive form can cause an unreparable loss to their company, advocate Lall said.

The company has also sought Rs 20 lakh as damages from the manufacturers for encashing a well-established trademark, and causing damages to them. (UNI)

HC refrains Chennai-based company from using Nike trademark

17 November 2007

The Delhi High Court has refrained a Chennai based company from infringing on Nike's trademark rights and directed it to stop selling its products using the brand name.

Justice S N Aggrawal refrained G R Fragrances from manufacturing, marketing and selling its products under the NIKE trademark till the disposal of the case.

Chander Mohan Lall, Manish Dhir and Kripa Pandit, lawyers for Nike International said infringement of the trademark by the defendant had lowered the global company's reputation.

Nike had approached the court to get an interim injunction for the use of their registered trademark by the Chennai based company.

The court gave an ex-parte injunction and refrained the erring company from using the trademark. (UNI)

Pepsi Moves Court Over Alleged IPR Violation

January 04, 2005 (Indlaw)

The Delhi High Court in an interim order today restrained the producers and director of 'Dil Maange More', the new Bollywood release featuring Shahid Kapoor and Soha Ali Khan, from licensing its international istribution/overseas release and video rights.

In an ex parte order, Hon'ble Justice Tirath Singh Thakur also restrained Fourth Wall Productions and Director of the film Anant Mahadevan from licensing the cable, video and internet rights or any other electronic rights by using the title 'Dil Maange More' which is similar to popular phrase "Yeh Dil Maange More" used by softdrink giant Pepsi in its commercial.

Pepsi approached the court, contending that it has exclusive copyright and trademark rights over the use of the phrase "Yeh Dil Maange More". The court said since nothing was on record to support the submission made by Pepsi's counsels, Rajiv Nayar and Pratibha Singh, regarding the transfer of rights in the offending film/cinemotograph to third parties, any direction regarding such transfer would have to be conditional.

"I am satisfied that a prima facie case for the issue of such a conditional direction has been made out. In the circumstance, I direct that pending further orders, the defendants (producers and directors) shall not transfer the rights in the offending film/cinemotograph in any of the modes in case the same have not already been transferred in favour of third party," Justice Thakur said

The court said the order would be operative till next hearing on February 2 and issued notices to the producers, director and Super Cassette Industries Limited, the company selling the music of the film.

Service Query Form
* Full Name:
* Email
* Phone
* City
* Your Comments
* Security Code
Captcha Code

For Trademark Registration Services and Information
Enter your email address:

Arbitration | Arbitration Dispute Resolution | Company Incorporation | Company Formation | Patent Attorneys | International Patent Search | International Patent Offices | India Patent Office | Patent Laws | Patent Law in India | Intellectual Property Rights | Intellectual Property Rights Protection | Intellectual Property Rights in UK | Intellectual Property Laws | International Intellectual Property Rights | IPR Law Firms in India | IPR Law Firms in Bangalore | IPR Law Firms in Chandigarh | IPR Law Firms in Chennai | IPR Law Firms in Delhi | IPR Law Firms in Hyderabad | IPR Law Firms in Jaipur | IPR Law Firms in Kolkata | IPR Law Firms in Mumbai | Patent Law Firm in India | New Patent Filing in India | New Patent Registration | Indian Patent Registration Law Firm | IPR | IPR Rights | IPR Protection | IPR Patent | Trademark Database | Trademark Litigation India | India Trademark Litigation | Patent Preparation Prosecution Services | Barcode | FCRA Registration in Delhi | NBFC Registration in Delhi | Trademark Agents in Delhi | Trademark in Delhi | Trademark Law Firms in Delhi | Cooperative Society Registration | Design Registration India | FPO Agmark | FPO Registration | LLC Registration | LLC Registration India | LLP Formation | LLP Formation India | Society Registration | Society Registration India | Trademark Clearance | Trademark Maintenance | Trademark Renewal | Agmark Certification | Firm Name Registration | Foreign Exchange Regulations | Income Tax Consultancy | ISO Certification | LLP Registration | Shop Act Registration | SME Registration | SME SSI Registration | SSI Registration | TAN Registration | Industrial Design Services | ISO 9001:22000 | Shop Act Registration India | Trademark Information | Trademark | Trademark Services | International Trademark | US Patent Office | UK Patent Office | Trademark Assistance | Trademark Registration in India | Trademark List | Trademark Lookup | Trademark Association | India Trademark Association | India Trademark Brand | Disclaimer


XML Sitemap India Trademark
Design, Developed and SEO by ThinkTank Infotech

Trademark Filing @ 6,000/Only

mail@tm-india.com

Request for Call Back or Call at +91-8800-100-281