Undertakings : Intellectual Property Laws,

S. MAJUMDAR & CO. Patents, Trademarks, Designs, Copyrights,

Lk;encing, Investigations, Litigations
P A T E N T & TRAdcMAnk ATTORMCXS
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
5, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 025
Tel : 91-33-2455 7484/85/86, Fax : 91-33-2455-7487/88, E-mail: [email protected]

The Registrar of T r a d e M a r k s
The Trade M a r k s Registry
KOLKATA May 10, 2 0 1 1

Dear Sir,

Re: Trademark: 'SARVSIDHI'

O p p o s i t i o n No. 7 7 3 1 1 3 To
Application No. 1 8 9 2 7 9 1 in Class 9 9 - v i z . C l a s s e s 2 4 , 2 5 & 3 5
Applicant: ANUPAM KHEMKA trading a s SARVSZDHI FASHION
Opponent: M / s . SHREESIDHI CREATIONS PVT. LTD.
Our Ref: T G G / 2 4 S 4 . 2 4 9 4 as 2 4 9 5

We received copy of t h e notice of opposition on TM 5 (UNDER THE ABOVE

SINGLE OPPOSITION NO. 7 7 3 1 1 3 TO APPLICATION NO. 1 8 9 2 7 9 1 IN CLASS
9 9 - Multiclass Application o n F o r m TM-51 in t h r e e s e p a r a t e Classes viz.
Classes 24, 2 5 Ss 35) in t h e above opposition m a t t e r o n March 17, 2 0 1 1
along with y o u r letter dated March 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 u n d e r official action No.
TOP/7960.

We now s u b m i t t h e c o u n t e r s t a t e m e n t in triplicate on Form TM 6 in

response to t h e notice of opposition filed by t h e o p p o n e n t along with a n
official fee of R s . J ^ M ^ - for three c l a s s e s viz. C l a s s e s 2 4 , 2 5 & 3 5 [@ Rs.
1 , 0 0 0 / - per Class] (Consolidated Cheque No.lig:|.&^ ^ d a t e d 1 0 . 0 5 . 2 0 1 1
d r a w n on Punjab National B a n k , A s h u t o s h Mukherjee Road, Kolkata - 7 0 0
0 2 0 payable a t all b r a n c h e s ) .

The c o u n t e r s t a t e m e n t m a y be t a k e n on record a n d t h e m a t t e r may be

progressed to t h e n e x t stage.

Yours faithfully,
For S. M a j u m d a r & Co.

A. K. C h a k r a b a i ^
Advocate

E n d : 1) C o u n t e r S t a t e m e n t in triplicate.
2) Official Fee of Rs. 3 , 0 0 0 / -

Branch: 202, Etecon Chambers, Behind Saki Naka Tel. Ex..Off Kurta^Andheri Road, Saki Naka. Mumbai- 400 072. India
Tel.: 91-22-2852 2901/2902. Fax : 91- 22- 2852 2903. e-mail: bom©patent(ndia.com
 '~ru--t-i

n i ^ . . ^ '-.r;.

F e e : R s . 3 0 0 0 / - [ @ R s . 1 0 0 0 / - p e r Class] i 1 1 MAY 2011

(For Class 99 viz. C l a s s e s 2 4 , 2 5 & 35) itnt,*. . S'/.^M/
Under Single Opposition Number C-f^Miei

FORM TM 6
THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999

FORM OF COUNTER STATEMENT

fSection 2 1 , Rule 49)

IN THE MATTER OF UNDER SINGLE OPPOSITION NO. 773113 TO APPLICATION

NO. 1892791 in Class 99 fMulticlass Application on Form TM-51 in three separate
Classes viz. Classes 24, 25 Ss 35) in the name of ANUPAM KHEMKA trading as
SARVSIDHI FASHION for registration of the trademark 'SARVSIDHI'.

I, ANUPAM KHEMKA trading as SARVSIDHI FASHION, a company having a place of

business at 11, Sudder Street, P.S. Arcade, 3«> Floor, Kolkata - 700 016 being the
applicant for registration of the trademark, hereby submit that the following are the
grounds on which I rely for my application.

1. The applicant started a business of boutique in the year 2004 under the
name and style SIDHVI'S which was coined and adopted from the names of
her son SIDHARTH and a daughter PALLAVI. In the year 2006, the applicant
along with one Bimal Kumar Goenka, formed a company namely
SHREESIDHI CREATIONS PVT. LTD., the opponent herein. The said
SHREESIDHI CREATIONS PVT. LTD. carried on its business in trading of
unstitched and semi stitched salwar suits. But soon irreconcilable disputes
arose between the applicant and the said Bimal Kumar Goenka. The
applicant thereafter has decided to quit from the business and resigned as a
director from the said SHREESIDHI CREATIONS PVT. LTD., the opponent
herein.

2. Soon after her resignation as a director from the opponent company, the
applicant set up her own business on or about September 2007 under the
 name and style 'SARVSIDHI FASHION' manufacturing and selling unstitched
and semi stitched salwar suits and dress material and adopted the name
SARVSIDHI as its brand name. The business of the applicant has grown
steadily since its inception and has acquired reputation and goodwill of high
order as a result of its quality products and new designs, which were highly
appreciated by the trade at large. In or about November 2007, a new
company was formed by the applicant and her h u s b a n d Arvind Khemka
under the name SARVSIDHI FASHION PVT. LTD. The directors of the said
company are the applicant herein and the said Arvind Khemka with a view to
market the products of the applicant.

3. In order to promote and publicize the business and the products the
applicant carries on marketing activities of diverse nature including by the
holding of fashion shows in which the name and brand SARVSIDHI of the
applicant is actively promoted and propagated. The applicant is a member of
Council of Kolkata Unstitched Salwar Suits (COKUSS) for the purpose of
promotion of the products under the applicant's brand SARVSIDHI. By virtue
of excellent quality of the applicant's products, the brand SARVSIDHI
acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation amongst the public and in the
trade so much so people started identifjdng and associating the goods of the
apphcant under the trade name SARVSIDHI FASHION.

4. The applicant states that since the inception of the business in September
2007 the said Bimal Kumar Goenka, director of the opponent company, has
been persistently trying to cause obstruction and hindrance to the business
of the applicant out of jealousy and business rivalry.

5. Some time in the year 2008, the said Bimal Kumar Goenka along with one of
his employees Kundan Kumar Singh opened a firm under the name
'SARVSIDHI FASHON' deleting the letter *I' from the word 'FASHION' in order
to come close to the applicant's tradename 'SARVSIDHI FASHION' and to
create confusion and deception amongst the members of the trade and the
customers of the applicant in particular. The said Bimal Kumar Goenka
started his said business in the same premises as that of the applicant,
namely No.4, Chowringhee Lane, Diamond Chamber, 2"^ Floor, Unit No. 2D,
 Kolkata. It is stated that the said firm SARVSIDHI FASHON of the opponent
was formed solely to create confusion amongst the customers of the
applicant. It is apparent that the said firm was formed with an ulterior
motive and mala fide intention to take advantage and to encash upon the
reputation and goodwill of the applicant and the tradename SARVSIDHI
FASHION of the applicant and thereby deceive and cheat people by
representing themselves as the existing business concern of the applicant
and to pass off their goods as and for the goods of the applicant.

6. On 04.12.2009, the applicant came across a caution notice issued on behalf

of the opponent in the leading Hindi newspaper 'Sanmarg' dated 04.12.2009
claiming themselves to be the registered proprietor and owner of the
trademark SARVSIDHI. In the said notice the opponent falsely claimed the
user of the mark SARVSIDHI since 2006 in respect of its products. On the
basis of the said caution notice, the applicant conducted an enquiry and
came to know that the opponent has filed as many as four applications in the
office of the Trade Marks Registry, Kolkata bearing Application No. 1725535
to 1725538 in Classes 24, 25, 35 & 42 respectively for the registration of the
mark SARVSIDHI. The said applications were notified in the Trade Marks
Journal dated 01.08.2009 and the opposition period expired on 01.12.2009.
Finding the aforesaid public notice the applicant filed a complaint on
08.12.2009 at the New Market Police Station under the jurisdiction of which
the opponent carries on business. From the above it is apparent that the
opponent h a s been working in a preplanned manner strategically to usurp
the brand/trade name, goodwill and reputation of the applicant which has
been acquired after a lot of hard work and tedious efforts and also to pass off
opponent's substandard goods as that of the applicant.

7. The applicant states that the opponent carries on a similar business as that
of the applicant and is also a member of the Council of Kolkata Unstitched
Salwar Suits {COKUSS) to promote their brands 'Bfour' and 'Shreesidhi
Creations'. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant owned the mark
SARVSIDHI at all material times and is the trade name and trademark
thereof. On the contrary, the opponent h a s been using its trademarks "Bfour
 and Shreesidhi Creations' from the inception of its business and has never
used the m a r k / n a m e SARVSIDHI in respect of its business and goods.

8. Soon after coming across the said public notice of the opponent, the
applicant filed a multiclass application on TM-51 for registration of the mark
SARVSIDHI in Class 24, 25 fis 35 under the present application No. 1892791.
It is submitted that the applicant has no business relation with the opponent
and is not connected with them in any manner whatsoever. In spite of that
the opponent is trying to use the name and goodwill in respect of the
trademark SARVSIDHI of the applicant with an ulterior and illegal motive of
using the said trademark and thereby deceiving the traders in general and
unwary customers in particular, which is illegal and mala fide.

9. It is further stated that the applicant has been using the mark SARVSIDHI
for the last about 4 years openly, continuously and extensively and due to
such long and continuous use and by virtue of excellent quality of products,
the said trademark SARVSIDHI has been exclusively associated with the
applicant and the same has acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation
whereas, the opponent had all throughout been using the brand name
*BFOUR' and 'SHREESIDHI CREATIONS'. A certificate dated 07.12.2009 has
been issued by the said Council of Kolkata Unstitched Salwar Suits
(COKUSS) certifying therein the brand SARVSIDHI is being used only by the
applicant company 'Sarvsidhi Fashion' and 'Sarvsidhi Fashion Pvt. Ltd.' As
such the adoption and use of the identical mark SARVSIDHI by the opponent
is not bona fide and is with an intention to trade upon the reputation of the
applicant's trade name and trademark and to create confusion in the mind of
the purchasing public besides resorting to misrepresentation by the
opponent in order to create an impression that the products of the opponent
originates from the applicant. The opponent is now intimidating the
customers of the applicant warning them that legal steps would be taken if
they deal in the applicant and purchase the products of the applicant under
the trademark SARVSIDHI.

10. It is stated that the applicant is the bona fide and lavrful user of the mark
SARVSIDHI by virtue of its fancy adoption and any trader including the
 opponent herein is not entitled to use a trade name/trademark which is
identical thereto or deceptively similar in respect of unstitched and semi
stitched salwar suits. The illegal and unauthorized use of the applicant's
trade name in respect of identical products is in absolute violation of the
common law rights of the applicant leading to passing off of the opponent's
goods as and for the goods of the applicant.

11. In order to defend its right of the trade name and trademark SARVSIDHI the
applicant filed a suit against the opponent in the City Civil Court, Calcutta
being T. S. No. 6583 of 2009 prajdng inter alia the foUowings and has also
filed an application for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 85 2 read
with Section 151 of the C.P.Code:

"a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (the opponent

herein) and/or their men and agents, dealers, retailers and others from using
or causing to be used and/or enabling others to use the m.ark SARVSIDHI as
well as trade name SARVSIDHI FASHIONS or any other deceptively similar
marks/name in relation to unstitched/semi stitched salwar suits and dress
material;

a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants by itself, its

partners, associates, employees, servants etc. from selling and/or passing off
and/or causing to pass off the products of the defendants as and for those of
the plaintiff (the applicant herein) using plaintiffs mark SARVSIDHI (word)
and/or any other deceptively similar marks in respect of goods
aforementioned ".

12. After hearing the said injunction petition under Order 39 Rule 1 85 2 the
HOUTDIC Judge of the City Civil Court was pleased to pass an order dated
December 2 3 , 2009 against the opponent and others restraining them from
using the trademark SARVSIDHI or SARVSIDHI FASHON or any other name
or trademark deceptively similar thereto in any way and the said order is still
valid and subsisting and has been extended from time to time till todate.

13. On January 06, 2010 the applicant filed a complaint under Section 115 read
with Section 107 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Ld. Registrar of
 Trade Marks against the registration of the opponent's identical trademark
SARVSIDHI under Application Nos. 1725535, 1725536, 1725537 & 1725538
in Classes 24, 25, 35 8& 42 respectively. Subsequently a reminder in
connection with the said complaint has also been filed on February 18, 2010
before the Ld. Registrar of Trade Marks but inadvertently the registration
certificates in respect of the trademark SARVSIDHI under the above four
applications have been issued to the opponent.

14. Being aggrieved by the order of injunction passed by the HonlDle Judge of the
City Civil Court the opponent preferred three appeals against the interim
orders dated December 23, 2009; January 22, 2010; March 23, 2010 and the
HonlDle High Court at Calcutta after hearing both the parties was pleased to
dismiss all the three appeals and directed the Ld. City Civil Court to dispose
of the application for temporary injunction by April 29, 2010. The HonT^le
High Court had also directed the appellant, the opponent herein by the same
order to file its objection within one week and reply if any, by the opponent
herein within thereafter. The opponent did not file its objection despite
specific direction of the Hon Tale High Court at Calcutta. The applicant craves
leave to adduce all relevant evidences at the proper stage of the proceedings.

15. It is submitted that the opponent has obtained the registration of the
trademark SARVSIDHI fraudulently and by making false representation
claiming a false user since 02.02.2006 as would be apparent from the
opponent's registration. But on the contrary the applicant h a s been using
the mark SARVSIDHI openly, uninterruptedly and extensively since long and
the mark SARVSIDHI is well established and distinctive of the products of
the applicant. The trademark SARVSIDHI of the applicant enjoys extensive
reputation and the opponent h a s adopted, applied for and obtained
registration of the trademark SARVSIDHI dishonestly and in bad faith in
contravention of the provisions of Sections 9, 11, 18 (1) and 34 of the Act.
The applicant has already initiated rectification proceedings against the
impugned registrations of the said trademarks for cancellation and removal
of the same from the Trade Mark Register and the said rectification
proceedings are still pending.
16. The applicant h a s perused the notice of opposition and noted each and every
statement averred and the allegations made against the applicant. The
applicant denies and disputes each and every allegation raised in the said
notice of opposition save and except what are specifically admitted by the
applicant and the opponent is put to strict proof the statements and the
allegations made in the notice of opposition. The notice of opposition is not
maintainable in law and ought to be rejected in limine.

17. That none of the statements, averments, allegations and contentions made
and raised in the said notice of opposition is admitted herein save and except
what would strictly appear from the record and not specifically denied. The
applicant categorically states that the notice of opposition filed by the
opponent is bad in law, perverse, incoherent and abuse of the process of law.

18. Without prejudice to the aforesaid assertions and contentions of the

applicant the applicant will now proceed to deal with the various statements
and allegations contained in the notice of opposition in seriatim.

19. With reference to paragraphs 1, 2 8B 3 of the notice of opposition, it is

emphatically denied that the opponent has adopted and has been using the
trademark SARVSIDHI since February 2006 in respect of their goods and the
said trademark h a s gained tremendous goodwill and reputation by the use of
the opponent as alleged or at all. It is submitted that after its adoption the
applicant h a s been using the trademark SARVSIDHI for the last about 4
years since 2007 openly, continuously and extensively and due to long,
continuous and extensive use the said trademark is exclusively identified
and associated only with the applicant and the same has acquired
tremendous goodwill and reputation. It is also submitted that the applicant
is the bona fide prior adopter and prior user of the trademark SARVSIDHI,
which has been derived from the name of the son and the daughter of the
applicant as already stated. It is also stated that the opponent has never
used the trademark SARVSIDHI but has all through been using the
trademark 'BFOUR' and 'SHREESIDHI CREATIONS'. Since the applicant is
the bona fide and lawful user of the mark SARVSIDHI by virtue of fancy
 adoption of the same, any trader including the opponent herein is not
entitled to use the tradename/trademark SARVSIDHI which is identical to
the applicant's trademark in question in respect of unstitched and semi
stitched salwar suits. The dishonest and unauthorized use of the applicant's
trade name and trademark by the opponent in respect of identical products
is in absolute violation of the common law rights of the applicant and
constitutes passing off and falsification of the trademark SARVSIDHI. The
opponent's user of the identical trademark SARVSIDHI since February 2006
is emphatically disputed and strongly denied. The opponent is put to strict
proof thereof by adducing cogent documentary evidence. It is also submitted
that the registration of the trademark SARVSIDHI by the opponent is
dishonest and mala fide and has been obtained by practicing fraud upon and
making false representation to the Ld. Registrar. The applicant has already
initiated rectification proceedings against the impugned registration of the
opponent's said trademark, which is identical to the applicant's trademark
SARVSIDHI as already stated. It is further submitted that since the opponent
h a s adopted and registered the trademark SARVSIDHI dishonestly and in
bad faith, any amount of alleged user of the said trademark would not inure
to any benefit to the opponent and the opponent is not entitled to protection
under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act.

20. With reference to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 86 8 of the notice of opposition, it is

strongly denied that the opponent has been openly, continuously, widely and
extensively using the trademark SARVSIDHI in relation to their goods as
alleged or at all. The opponent is put to strict proof thereof by adducing
firsthand documentary evidence. The huge and ready sales of the opponent's
goods bearing the trademark SARVSIDHI are strongly disputed and denied
for want of documentary evidence. It is further denied that the opponent has
acquired goodwill and reputation in the said trademark and has acquired
exclusive right under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act as alleged. It is
categorically denied that the opponent is the earlier in conceiving, adopting
and using the trademark SARVSIDHI and is entitled to the exclusive use of
the said trademark. It is further denied that the opponent is exclusively
entitled to prevent others from using the said trademark SARVSIDHI as
 alleged or at all. Since the applicant is the bona fide prior adopter and user of
the trademark SARVSIDHI the opponent has no right in law and equity to
restrain the applicant from using and registering the said trademark.

21. With reference to paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 of the notice of
opposition, it is strongly denied that the opponent is the original adopter and
lawful proprietor of the trademark SARVSIDHI as alleged or at all. It is
submitted that the opponent has registered the trademark SARVSIDHI by
practicing fraud upon the Ld. Registrar and by making false representation of
the alleged user suppressing the material fact that the opponent has never
used the trademark SARVSIDHI excepting the trademarks BFOUR' and
'SHREESIDHI'. Therefore, the statements of exclusive user of the trademark
SARVSIDHI by the opponent are absolutely false and fabricated and cannot
be taken into consideration. The huge amount of publicity and
advertisements of the opponent's trademark is disputed and denied for want
of cogent documentaiy evidence. The opponent is put to strict proof thereof.
Since the applicant is the sole proprietor of the trademark SARVSIDHI and
has been using the same openly, continuously and extensively in the course
of trade, there is no reason to believe that the trademark SARVSIDHI has
created a lasting impression amongst the consumers that the same is
identified and associated with the opponent as alleged or at all. The
statements are false and fabricated and cannot be taken into consideration.
The rest of the contents are mere repetition and cannot call for further
comments.

22. With reference to paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the notice of
opposition, it is submitted that there is no doubt that the trademark
SARVSIDHI represents highest standard of quality but the said quality is
maintained only by the applicant and the opponent is dishonestly
encroaching upon the reputation and goodwill of the applicant's said
trademark SARVSIDHI under which only the applicant's goods are sold in the
market. The opponent is all along trying to pass off its goods as and for the
goods of the applicant by way of use and register the applicant's trademark
SARVSIDHI in bad faith and by practicing fraud upon the trades and the
 10

people at large. It is obvious that the real object of the opponent is to confuse
and deceive the trade and members of public into believing that the said
products of the opponent under the identical brand and trade name are the
applicant's products or is otherwise connected with the applicant. It is
emphatically denied that the trademark SARVSIDHI h a s become a well
known trademark within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Act by the
extensive use made by the opponent as alleged or at all. It is further
submitted that the applicant has been using the trademark SARVSIDHI
openly, continuously and extensively and by virtue of such use the same has
become identified and associated only with the applicant and has also
become well known. The opponent has always invaded and still continues to
invade the right of the applicant's exclusive use of the mark SARVSIDHI in
respect of unstitched and semi stitched salwar suits under the said
trademark. The use of the applicant's said trademark/tradename by the
opponent is calculated to cause confusion and h a s caused the offending
goods not of the applicant's manufacture to be sold a n d / o r passed off as
those of the applicant. It is categorically denied that u s e of the applicant's
trademark is illegal and does not confer any right upon the applicant as
alleged or at all. It is emphatically denied that the Ld. Registrar had himself
expressed doubt over the registrability of the applicant's trademark as the
same has been advertised under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Act as
alleged or at all. It is submitted that after being satisfied with the
distinctiveness of the applicant's trademark SARVSIDHI the Ld. Registrar
has ordered the same to be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and there
is no reason to believe that the Ld. Registrar had doubts about the
registrability of the applicant's trademark as alleged or at all. It is further
submitted that since the applicant is the proprietor of the trademark
SARVSIDHI under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Act, the applicant is
not required to take license or assignment or permission or consent from the
opponent in order to use and register the impugned trademark. It is strongly
denied that the opponent is the prior user/adopter of the trademark
SARVSIDHI as alleged or at all.
 11

23. With reference to paragraphs 2 1 , 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Ss 27 of the notice of
opposition, it is categorically denied that the applicant h a s no reason for
adopting the impugned trademark as alleged or at all. It is further denied
that the applicant's trademark under opposition is devoid of any distinctive
character and is not capable of distinguishing the goods in respect of which
the applicant is seeking registration. It is categorically denied that the
impugned trademark does not qualify for registration under the Section 9 (1),
9 (2), 11 (1), 11 (2) and 11 (3) of the Act. It is strongly denied that there exists
a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public with the opponent's
trademark SARVSIDHl as alleged or at all. The rest of the contents are mere
repetition and formal statements and do not call for further comments.

24. With reference to paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31 86 32 of the notice of opposition,
it is strongly denied that the applicant h a s imitated the opponent's
trademark with the dishonest intention of trading upon the goodwill and
reputation accrued to the opponent's trademark as alleged or at all. On the
contrary it is the opponent who has adopted and imitated the applicant's
trademark SARVSIDHl, which h a s never been used by the opponent and the
opponent is tiying to pass off its goods by way of adoption and registration of
the applicant's said trademark. It is categorically denied that registration of
the applicant's trademark wiU be prejudicial to public interest, ethics and
public morality as alleged or at all. It is also denied that the applicant's
trademark is not entitled to protection in a court of law as alleged or at all. It
is submitted that the Hon'ble Judge of the City Civil Court and the Calcutta
High Court h a s already given protection to the applicant's trademark and the
appeals preferred by the opponent against the ad-interim injunction granted
by the City Civil Court in favour of the applicant h a s been dismissed by the
Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. It is strongly denied that the applicant has
not come with clean hands for seeking registration of the trademark
SARVSIDHl and the registration is barred under Section 11 (10) of the Act as
alleged or at aU. It is categorically denied that the impugned application for
the trademark SARVSIDHl by the applicant h a s no honest concurrent use
and the registration of the applicant's trademark is not maintainable having
regard to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Since the applicant is the
 12

bona fide proprietor of the trademark SARVSIDHI under Section 18 (1) of the
Act the applicant is entiUed to the discretion of the Ld. Registrar being
exercised in its favour for registration of the subject trademark.

25. With reference to paragraphs 33, 34 8& 35 of the notice of opposition, it is

strongly denied that the adoption of the applicant's trademark SARVSIDHI
shows the mala fide intention of the opponent to trade upon the goodwill and
reputation on the opponent's trademark as alleged or at all. It is emphatically
denied that registration of the subject trademark is prohibited within the
meaning of Section 29 (4) of the Act. It is also denied that registration of the
applicant's trademark would be in contravention with Section 9 (2), 11 (1), 11
(2), 11 (3), 11 (10), 12, 18 (1), 29 (4) and 33 of the Act as aUeged or at all.

26. That in the above premises, the applicant prays that the instant opposition
be dismissed being mala fide, unjust and unwarranted in facts and law, filed
with the sinister motive of thwarting the rights of the applicant to register its
said trade mark and thereby abusing the process of law and other provisions
of the Trade Marks Act.

27. The applicant states that the opponent has failed miserably to make out any
prima facie case in support of their opposition and the subject application
ought to proceed to registration for larger public interest.

In the circumstances the applicant prays that: -

a) The present opposition be dismissed;

b) The subject application be allowed to proceed to registration;

c) Cost of the proceedings be awarded in favor of the appficant;

d) Any other relief a n d / o r reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper for the ends of justice.
 13

All communications in relation to these proceedings may be sent to the following

address in India:

S. MAJUMDAR & CO., 5, Harish Mukhcrjcc Road, Kolkata-7CXX)25.

Dated this the lotv^day of May 2011.

For Sarvsidhi Fashion

Filed bv

A. K. Chakrabarty, Advocate
S. Majumdar 8B Co.

The Registrar of Trade Marks

Trade Marks Registry
KOLKATA

VERIFICATION

I, Anupam Khemka trading as M/s. SARVSIDHI FASHION, having a place of

business at 11, Sudder Street, P.S. Arcade, 3"" Floor, Kolkata - 700 016, do hereby
declare that I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present
case and competent and a"a1iiOTized to sign t h e present counter statement. TVie
statements and submissions made hereinabove are true to my knowledge and belief
and I sign this verification on this the \d^ day of May 2011.

Anupam Khemka