Property proprietors and residents, who had come to the District Administrative Complex for online registration in their properties, were a harried lot as the server of the National Generic Software for Document Registration (NGDRS) device remained down for the second consecutive day as a result of a ‘machine failure’ on Thursday.
Long queues were seen outdoor the Mohali Tehsildar’s office. Pradeep Kumar, who had come for registration of his a hundred and fifty-sq.Yd plot in Aerocity, stated, “I have been touring the office for 2 days, however, have now not been able to sign in the property information for the reason that server isn’t operational.”
Bharat of Zirakpur stated the technical snag could not be fixed even at nine pm and officers had been doing registrations manually. He said there were nonetheless about a hundred human beings queued up at the workplace.
Online registration of assets become started out on January 8 to stop humans from the hassles worried inside the bulky registration procedure.
Officials stated the server (www.Igrpunjab.Gov.In) become down in numerous districts of Punjab due to a ‘pace optimization’ problem at the returned-stop, which was being constant through the National Informatics Centre (NIC), Pune.
Shinu Arora, the technical assistant on the Office of Sub-Registrar, said the server became down due to the fact that Wednesday and that they had placed up a note out of doors the workplace in this connection.
“The server became operational in the day, however, it couldn’t be accessed for a need of LAN (local vicinity network) connectivity,” she stated.
ADC Charandev Singh Mann stated, “We are making dedicated efforts to restore the system failure.” Despite repeated tries, Tehsildar Jaspal Singh Brar couldn’t be reached for feedback.
In the case of CeWe Color AG and Co v Office for Harmonisation within the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-178/03 and T-179/03), the Court of First Instance rejected CeWe’s change mark programs considering the marks were merely descriptive and lacked distinctiveness.
In 2001, CeWe implemented for registration of the Community Trade Marks for the names DIGIFILM and DIGIFILMMAKER in Classes 9, sixteen and 42 in appreciate of apparatus and automatic machines for recording information vendors, particularly apparatus for the transfer of virtual information onto records providers.
The examiner rejected the packages in respect of Classes nine and 42 in accordance with Art 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) forty/ ninety-four. The examiner concluded that:-
– the alternate marks sought were genuinely descriptive of the applicable items and services; and
– the phrases ‘Digi’, ‘Film’ and ‘Maker’ did now not have enough level of a strong point for registration.
CeWe appealed and the Board of Appeal upheld the examiner’s selection. CeWe further appealed to the Court of First Instance and contended that:-
even though the terms ‘digi’, ‘film’ and ‘maker’ are regarded to refer within the English language to respectively ‘virtual’, ‘film’ and ‘producer’, the marks have been now not descriptive however had been rather technical terms which most people understood;
the aggregate of the terms ‘digi’, ‘film’ and ‘maker’ changed into precise; and
although the marks for which registration changed into sought can also seem on the net, they’re no longer indexed in the dictionary and are therefore able to register.
the phrases ‘digi’, ‘film’ and ‘maker’ in DigiFilm and DigiFlimMaker form combinations able to being dissociated and these juxtapositions are neither uncommon nor hanging;
DigiFilm and DigiFlimMaker could be understood without delay by means of the public as relating to the processing of digital information;
within the absence of any additional detail whether or not picture or every other special function, the marks sought lacked the vital uniqueness for registration;
the phrases DigiFilm and DigiFlimMaker could be perceived by using the average consumer as phrases clearly descriptive of the products and services they provide; and
CeWe’s attraction might be rejected.
For assistance with registering your exchange mark please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.Com
© RT COOPERS, 2005. This Briefing Note does not provide a complete or complete statement of the regulation regarding the problems mentioned nor does it represent prison recommendation. It is supposed best to spotlight trendy issues. Specialist prison advice needs to constantly be sought on the subject of unique situations.
In Alcon Inc v Of Office for Harmonisation within the Internal Market (OHIM) , a mark become refused registration due to the fact the public became possibly to confuse the mark with any other comparable mark.
In 1998, Alcon filed a software for registration of the phrase mark TRAVATAN in appreciate of products inside Class 5, particularly ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations.
In 1999, Biofarma SA filed an opposition in opposition to registration of TRAVATAN, arguing that there could be confused with the word mark TRIVASTAN, registered in Italy in 1986. This in advance alternate mark become also registered below Class five masking pharmaceutical, veterinary, hygiene products, and others.
In compliance with Article forty-two of Regulation No 40/ninety four, Alcon asked that Biofarma provide proof that the TRIVASTAN mark been positioned for actual use in Italy. Biopharma despatched the requested files to OHIM, demonstrating the real use of TRIVASTAN in Italy.
In September 2001, the Opposition Division of OHIM discovered that use of TRIVASTAN changed into validated in admire of a pharmaceutical product inside Class five. The Opposition Division, therefore, refused registration of TRAVATAN due to the fact there has been possible to be confusion due to the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks. Alcon appealed this decision to the Third Board of Appeal who additionally rejected the attraction on the same grounds as the Opposition Division. Alcon then implemented to the Court of First Instance to annul the choice.