1. ' This order will govern the disposal of above-noted two Miscellaneous Appeals filed against the orders of Registrar of Trade Marks dated 29-7-1989. The facts relevant to the decision of the above Appeals are as follows: ' The Appellant applied for registration of two marks namely "Dentucreme" and "Dentugel" vide Applications Nos.95495 and 95494 both dated 20th August, 1987 under class.
3. The Registrar, Trade Marks, rejected both the applications on the preliminary stage without advertising them on the ground that the aforesaid marks are not registrable both .Under sections 10(1), 8(a) and 6(1) (d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends before me that the order of the Registrar, Trade Marks, rejecting the applications at a preliminary stage is wholly misconceived as there is no similarity in the marks applied for registration by the appellant and the one referred by the Registrar in the impugned order. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the marks applied for registration by the Appellant are also not at all descriptive although they may be suggestive in nature. Lastly, it is contended that in any case, the application could not have been rejected summarily without advertising the same.
2. ' The applications of the Apellant in respect of Trade Mark "Dentucreme" has been refused by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it is similar to another registered mark "Dentro" and another mark "Dentcure" in respect whereof an application for registration is pending. Similarly the application for registration of the mark "Dentugel" by the Appellant has also been refused on account of its similarity to another registered Mark "Dentogane" and the Mark "Dentogenz" in a pending application for registration of mark.
3. ' Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that as many as ten marks with the prefix of the word Dent belonging to different owners are already on the the Register of Trade Marks Registry and these are "Dentex Registration No,89070, "Dentone" Registration No,8527, "Dentime" Registration No,85543, "Dentonic" registration No,42735, "Dentgum" registration No,44864, "Dentasol" Registration No,81028, "Dentaid" Registration No,83161, "Dentor" registration No,66126, "Dentogine" Registration No,61732, "Dentorina" Registration No,58276. It is accordingly contended by the learned counsel that there was no justification for rejection of the applications of the Appellant summarily without advertising the same under section 15 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel is not without force. All the aforementioned marks pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant which were advertised in the Trade Mark Journal for registration contained the prefix "Dent".
4. Therefore, the question of similarity of the mark of Appellant on account of prefix "Dent" with other registered marks should not have been decided by the Registrar at the preliminary stage. This question should have been left to be decided after the marks applied for registration were advertised and opposed by any of the owners of the registered trade mark in accordance with the rules contained under the Trade Marks Act. Similarly the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that rejection of the above-mentioned trade marks on the ground that they are descriptive of quality and character of the goods is also not without substance. The word "Dentucreme" or "Dentigel" applied for registration by the appellant may suggest some connection with the "Dental" but it cannot be said to be descriptive of the quality or character of the goods.
5. Both the words "Dentucreme" and "Dentugal" prima facie appear to be inventive and do not refer to the character or quality of the goods, namely, the Toothpaste for which they were applied for registration under class 3. I accordingly accept both the appeals, set aside the orders of the Registrar, Trade Marks, and direct that the case of the appellant be processed and applications be advertised under section 15(1) of the Act and be disposed of in accordance with the law.
6. ' Since the applications were filed in 1987 the Registrar will make every efforts to dispose of the case and to advertise the applications as early as possible. There will be no order as to costs.