To, Date: 12-January-2024

The Registrar of Trademark,

Trademark Registry, DELHI

Sub: REPLY TO EXAMINATION REPORT(MIS-R) Dated on: 26/08/2020

20:54:11
Ref: Application No: 6048384

Dear Sir/ Ma’am

With reference to the above application, point wise reply is as under for your kind
perusal:

Reply attached separately,

Regards,
AMARNATH SAH
KHABAR AAJKAL
KHABAR AAJKAL

MASJID PARA, VILL: SAKUNTAPALLY, P.O & P.S: BAGDOGRA, SILIGURI DIST: DARJEELING.

To Date: 12-January-2024

The Registrar of Trade Marks,

Delhi

Dear Sir/ Ma’am,

 Application Number: 6048384

 Trademark: KHABAR AAJKAL
 Class: 41
 Applicant: AMARNATH SAH

We write with regard to the above subject matter.

We acknowledge receipt of official Examination Report Date: 22/12/2023 17:46:22 in

respect of the above application. A copy of the aforesaid official Examination Report along
with the search report are enclosed herewith for the ease of reference of the Learned
Registrar.

The Learned Registrar has raised certain objections against the registration of the
abovemark; our response to each objection is given seriatim as under:

Relative Grounds for Refusal under Sub Section 1(a) of Section 9 of “The Trademark
Act, 1999”:

The Learned Registrar has raised an objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999, that the mark is a non-distinctive and as such it is not capable of distinguishing
the services of one person from those of others.

 6048384 – for the mark “AMARNATH SAH”

Reply to Relative Grounds for Refusal under Sub Section 1(a) of Section 9 of “The
Trademark Act, 1999”:

 It is submitted that the said marks do not stand as a bar against the registration of
the subject, as it is well-recognized principal that a mark must be considered as a
whole and compared with the other word as a whole. The instant mark shares
“FINTAX” as common word with other mark. In this regard Case Laws mentioned
hereunder shall be consider:
1. In “Griffith VS. Vick Chemicals, AIR 1959 CAL 654”, wherein it was held that the
presence of a common element does not rule out registration since the true
 test lies on what the "Totality of Impression" that the mark produces. It is
not right to consider the mark in its component parts with each component
being viewed individually. It is respectfully submitted that it does not
restricts the us from including “FINTAX” in its mark.
2. In “Tokon v Davidson (1915) 32RCP 133 at 136, Lord Jhonston” observed: "We
are not bound to scan the words as we would in a question of
comparatioliterarum. It is not a matter for microscopic inspection, but to be
taken from the general and even casual point of view of a customer walking
in to a shop.

 It is well settled that an average consumer perceives a mark as a whole

“FINTAXPRO” and does not proceed to analyse its various details “FIN”, “TAX”,
“PRO”. Hence the mark must be considered as whole and not divided into various
parts and compared side by side.

 In this case, the subject mark reproduces none of the marks enlisted in the search
report in an unqualified manner. When viewed as a whole, it appears to be very
distinct in the mind of an average consumer due to the use of unique
combination of words& logo; which is explicitly different from the rest. Thus, it is
submitted before the learned registrar that the subject mark is not
phonetically,visually or structurally identical to the marks enlisted in the
examination report and does not create any confusionand our trademark is unique
andpeculiar in all forms.

 Usage of Trademark “FINTAXPRO”-

1. The Subject mark is in device form (i.e. an Image containing “FINTAXPRO

with Finance Taxation Accounts with a round circle around it” attached
hereunder for your kind reference-

2. The subject mark is used by us since Nov 2019

3. The mark has its presence on various social media platforms
 Facebook- www.facebook.com/FintaxproCA with a followership of
7400+ where 50+ original video content posted by us with the mark
“FINTAXPRO”– Over 100K Views as on date,
  Youtube - www.youtube.com/c/fintaxprowith a subscription of
1600+ where 80+ original video content posted by us with the mark
“FINTAXPRO”- Over 42K+ views as on date,
 Website – www.fintaxpro.wordpress.com
 Thus, public identify the subject mark and there is no chance for
confusion on part of public whatsoever.

Therefore in lieu of above mention facts read along with the cited case laws, it is
submitted-

 THAT the cited mark is phonetically and overall dissimilar in all aspects to the subject
mark and hence do not stand as a bar to registration of the subject mark

 THAT the we have honestly & in good faith adopted the subject trade mark

 THAT the subject mark has been associated and identified by the general public with
the us alone leaving no grounds for confusion.

 THAT the cited marks are overall dissimilar in all elements to the subject mark and
hence do not stand as a bar to registration of the subject mark.

Accordingly, the objection raised under sub section 1 of section 11 of Trademark Act,1999, are
not applicable to the subject mark and should be waived. In view of the information provided
hereabove, we request the learned Registrar to allow the mark to be advertise in the
subsequent editions of the Trademark Journal at the earliest as per the Rule 39 of Trademark
Rules, 2017 read with sub section 1 of section 20 of Trademark Act,1999

Should the Learned Registrar not be inclined to accept the application for registration, we
request that no adverse order be passed against us without being an opportunity of being
heard in the matter. Accordingly, hereby applying for personal hearing in the matter as
provided in Sub Rule 3 of Rule 38 of Trademark Rules,2017.

Enclosed Documents: -
1. Affidavit
2. Examination Report
3. FB insights report showing views & public engagement
4. YouTube insightsshowing views & public engagement

Yours Faithfully,

CA RAJAT GARG
Date – 05-Sept-2020
Place- New Delhi