Patan High Court grants  for 'CONTURA' trademark registration 

On November 28, 2023, the Patan High Court issued a consequential verdict in the Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. The Department of Industries case, providing a significant ruling on the matter of trademark distinctiveness registration and legal implications for the cancellation due to non-renewal.
Hawkins Cookers Limited, an Indian company filed an application for the registration of the CONTURA trademark in Nepal under class 21 on January 14, 2019. However, during the examination conducted by the Department of Industries (DOI), it was found that the CONTURA trademark was confusingly similar to the DIAMOND CONTURA trademark previously filed by a local company Tinau Top Kitchen Industries on June 9, 2008. As a result, the DOI decided not to register the 'CONTURA' trademark due to the prior filing of the application.
Hawkins Cookers Limited filed an appeal before the Patan High Court, after being dissatisfied with the decision of DOI. The appellants argued claiming that the words and pictures used by the other company for the DIAMOND CONTURA trademark and the CONTURA trademark are different. The appellants also emphasized the widespread recognition of CONTURA as a well-known trademark among their consumers in Nepal.
Followed by a thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the High Court ruled in favor of Hawkins Cookers Limited, allowing them to proceed with the registration process. The court acknowledged the distinctiveness between the two trademarks and noted that the DIAMOND CONTURA trademark had been cancelled due to non-renewal. The local company initiated a reapplication for the trademark on May 30, 2017. As per this basis of decision given by the Patan High Court's on November 28, 2023, the registration process for the CONTURA trademark will proceed and will be published in the Industrial Property Bulletin.
The ruling clarifies that the applicant is obligated to follow up all its trademark-related issues. This significantly carries legal consequences for the registration of a trademark after negligent cancellation due to non-renewal.
Therefore, it emphasizes that it is the responsibility of the concerned party to actively follow up matters relating to their trademark and only filing of the trademark does not establish the rights of the owner. This decision sets a rule, influencing a positive approach for similar cases in the future.

For further information please contact at: info@apexlaw.com.np