GLOBAL VISION LAW FIRM

Office at: 501A, Fifth Floor, UshaKiran Building, Azadpur,

Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110033
Mobile No. 9599801188, 8802637088,
E-mail-outsmartadvocate@gmail.com
====================================================================

To
The Registrar of Trade Mark
Trade Marks Registry
Delhi

Sub:- Reply to the Examination Report/Objection in respect of the Application No.

44927916 in Class 16 in the name of “DN”
Dear Sir,
We are the authorized attorney / advocate on behalf of the applicant in the trade mark
application No.44927916 in Class 16. The power of attorney duly executed in our favor by the
applicant is already on record.
Kindly refer to the examination report issued in the present application. In reference thereto
kindly find enclosed the response to the first examination report issued in the aforesaid
application along with relevant documents/enclosures.
Kindly do needful and proceed further with the matter as per the provisions of the law.

Thanking You,
Yours Sincerely,

AMARENDRA K. DUBEY
Attorney Code:-23377
D/200/13
ADVOCATE/ATTORNEY
ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT
1601A USHA KIRAN BULDING, COMMERCIA, COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI -110033
 GLOBAL VISION LAW FIRM
Office at: 501A, Fifth Floor, UshaKiran Building, Azadpur,
Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110033
Mobile No. 9599801188, 8802637088,
E-mail-outsmartadvocate@gmail.com
====================================================================

To
The Registrar of Trade Mark
Trade Marks Registry
Delhi
Subject: Reply to the objection raised in Examination Report in respect of Application
No.44927916
Dear Sir/Madam,
In the Examination Report of Application No. 44927916, it has been objected that same/similar
trade mark(s) is/are already on record of the register for the same or similar goods/services and
also has raised objection u/s 9 (1) (b). Objection is not maintainable because applied mark is
indications which may serve in trade to designate the quality and other characteristics in the
nature as per goods claimed but mark is not indicate any quality of the products. Applicant is
able to using said trade mark.

It is further stated that the Application in class 16 as application no. 843952 “DN” has been
registered under Class 16 which as per the Trademarks Act includes, manufacturing of
Goods/Services PRINTED MATTER, LETTER HEADS, VISITING CARDS,
INVOICES, PERIODICALS, BOOKS, STATIONERY, INSTRUCTIONAL AND
TEACHING MATERIAL ALL BEING GOODS INCLUDED IN CLASS 16. Therefore, it is
clearly evident that the respective Class itself distinguishes the occupations of the applicants.
Moreover the LETTERS used in “DN” are conspicuously evident. Further is clarified that the
Trademark name of my client i.e. ‘DN WITH DEVICES’, which Devices the trademark even
more distinctive and convenient for the general public to transact. In the light of these
contentions the objection raised by the Registrar in Trade Mark Name “DN” is inappropriate.
 GLOBAL VISION LAW FIRM
Office at: 501A, Fifth Floor, UshaKiran Building, Azadpur,
Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110033
Mobile No. 9599801188, 8802637088,
E-mail-outsmartadvocate@gmail.com
====================================================================

GROUNDS
1. The reason is given that there is no such Trade Mark registered prior to my client’s
application.
2. That the trademark name is intended to be read as a whole along with its devices.
3. That the customer’s details of my client are totally different.
4. That the packing of product of my client trademark which are totally different.

Under Section 9 (1) (b) Absolute grounds for refusal of registration.—

(1) The trade marks—

(b) which consist exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in

trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical
origin or the time of production of the goods or rendering of the service or other
characteristics of the goods or service

Under Section 11(1)

1. The reason is given that the Trade Mark registered prior to my client application.
2. That the Section 11 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 here in given below- “Relative grounds
for refusal of registration.—
Save as provided in section 12, a trade mark shall not be registered if, because of-

(a) its identity with an earlier trade mark and similarity of goods or services covered by
the trade mark; or

(b) its similarity to an earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or
services covered by the trade mark, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part
 GLOBAL VISION LAW FIRM
Office at: 501A, Fifth Floor, UshaKiran Building, Azadpur,
Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110033
Mobile No. 9599801188, 8802637088,
E-mail-outsmartadvocate@gmail.com
====================================================================

of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade
mark.”

APPL CLASS CONFLICTING JOURNAL PROPRIETOR NAME PROPRIETOR STATUS TM

NO MARK No ADDRESS IMAGE
GOODS SERVICES
843952 16 DN 9999 DEEPAK NITRITE Aaditya – I, Chhani Road, Registered  
LIMITED Vadodara – 390 024,
Gujarat, INDIA .
APPLICATION DATE 05/03/1999
14:42:00
GOODS/SERVICE printed matter, letter heads, visiting cards, invoices, periodicals, books, stationery, instructional
and teaching material.

CASE LAWS FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:-

It is further contested that in the case of M/s Nandhini Delux v. M/s Karnataka Co-
operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd, the trademark dispute pertained to the use of the
mark ‘NANDHINI’. The Respondent’s and Appellants Trademarks are depicted below for a
better understanding;

The Respondent in the case urged that the trademark “NANDINI” was adopted by them in the
year 19816 and under this brand name it has been producing and selling milk and milk products.
 GLOBAL VISION LAW FIRM
Office at: 501A, Fifth Floor, UshaKiran Building, Azadpur,
Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110033
Mobile No. 9599801188, 8802637088,
E-mail-outsmartadvocate@gmail.com
====================================================================

The appellant herein, on the other hand, is in the business of running restaurants and adopted the
mark “NANDHINI” for its restaurants in the year 1989. The Respondent had opposed the
registration; however the Trademark Registry eventually allowed registration of Appellant’s
trademark.

However, if further explanations are needed kindly allow us with an opportunity to put our point
and explain how our mark is totally different from other registered marks.
Hence the objection to this application No.44927916 is not maintainable. Thus, it is humbly
stated that since the conflicting mark mentioned in the examination report and the applicants
mark is distinct, applicants mark is eligible for registration.
That it is clear from the above details the scope of the application of my client is different from
the other trade names. Therefore, it is humbly prayed to kindly remove the objection made in
the Examination Report of Application No.44927916 and approve the Trademark for
registration. And gives me hearing for same if required.

Thanking You.

Yours Sincerely,

AMARENDRA K. DUBEY
Attorney Code:-23377
D/200/13