INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD
Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018
Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 232/2012 & 233/2012
in ORA/56/2007/TM/MUM and
ORA/56/2007/TM/MUM
MONDAY THIS, THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
Hon’ble Ms. S. Usha -- Vice Chairman
Hon’ble Shri V. Ravi -- Technical Member
CREATIVE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED
30, CREATIVE PLAZA -- Applicants
NANAKPURA, MOTI BAGH
NEW DELHI
(By Advocates Ms. Prathiba Singh & Shri Sandeep Chatterjee)
Vs.
1. CREATIVE TOURS AND TRAVELS (I) PVT. LTD.
FIRST FLOOR, KAPADIA CHAMBERS
M.G. ROAD, NEXT TO METRO CINEMA
DHOBI TALAO
2. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
THE TRADE MARKS REGISTRY -- Respondents
NEW DELHI
(By Advocates Shri A.A. Mohan, Shri Arun C. Mohan and
Shri Ram Prasad for R-1)
ORDER (No. 268 of 2012)
HON’BLE MS. S. USHA, VICE-CHAIRMAN
Original rectification application has been filed for removal of the trade mark registered under No. 1280212 in class 39 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. The brief facts of the case is:-
The applicant company is engaged in tours, travels, destination management, corporate package, conferences, meetings, ticketing and other related and allied business activities. Their annual turnover of the year 2000-2001 increased from Rs. 17.10 crores to Rs. 48.61 crores in the year 2005-2006. The company was established with many aims and objectives. The applicant company has made a wide spread global work in the field of tours and travels industry, destination management, corporate packages, conferences and meetings. They are members of various esteemed organizations.
3. The applicant company was founded by Shri Ram Kohli who is considered as the goodwill Ambassador in the field of Tourism. Shri Ram Kohli has played prominent role in the field of development of Indian Tourism in Germany and United States. He created new Markets in United States, Germany and other European countries for India as a destination. He promoted the first charters from America in 1972. After returning to India, Shri Ram Kohli founded the petitioner company “Creative Travel” in 1977 as one of the most quality conscious companies in the field of Tours and Travel.
Shri Ram Kohli in the capacity of Chairman or “Creative Travel” has been involved with various Indian & International Travel Organizations. He is the founder President of Indian Association of Tour Operators (IATO), a national body of Tour Operator in India. Shri Kohli held fiver terms as President IATO and today the success of this Association can be attributed to the vision of Shri Ram Kohli.
In 1999 as the Chairman of the petitioner company, Shri Ram Kohli was awarded PATA Chairman’s Achievement Award in the presence of the Crown Prince of Japan. In 2003, he has been honoured as the “International Travel Agent of the year” by the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA).
Shri Ram Kohli took over as Chairman of PATA Worldwide in the year 2004 as the 53rd Pacific Asia Travels Association Annual Conference held in South Korea for the period 2004-2005. It is also submitted that Mr. Ram Kohli is the only 2nd Indian from the private sector in the history of the Organisation to get elected as the Chairman.
4. The applicant company and its trade name “Creative Travel” was created in the year 1977. The company has acquired a unique name and association with the name “Creative Travel” which had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the travels and tourism industry. The company became a well known company on accounts of its wide advertisement. The applicant is clearly recognised by the Department of Tourism and has won several national and international awards. The applicant was awarded the Friend of Nepal by the King of Nepal and Indian Airlines Trophy for excellence in International Marketing.
5. The applicant is the registered proprietor of the trade mark “Creative Travel” under No. 1073370 in class 12 as of 11/01/2002; No. 1239864 in class 39 as of 26/09/2003 and No. 1334239 in class 16 as of 25/01/2005. The said registrations are valid and subsisting.
6. In May 2006, the applicants came to know that the 1st respondent herein had adopted the trade name “Creative Tours and Travels (I) Private limited” and is using the same in relation to tours and travels business.
The applicant therefore, initiated a civil suit against the 1st respondent in July 2006. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to grant an order of interim injunction which subsequently came to be vacated. The applicant has preferred an appeal against the said order of vacation which is pending adjudication.
7. The applicant came to know about the impugned registration which the 1st respondent had disclosed in the written statement filed in the civil suit. The applicant submits that the impugned trade mark is registered without sufficient cause and is wrongly remaining in the Register and is liable to be removed. The impugned registration is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 9(2)(a), 11(1), 11(3), 11(10), 18 and 57 of the Act.
8. The impugned trade mark may be removed on the grounds given under:-
(a) The applicants are the prior adopters, users and registered proprietors of the trade mark “Creative”. The use by any person of an identical/similar trade mark would amount to infringement of trade mark. The 1st respondents adoption cannot be justified.
(b) The applicants trade mark has acquired tremendous goodwill and therefore the use of the trade mark “Creative” by the 1st respondent is likely to cause confusion and deception. Therefore, the impugned registration is in contravention of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act.
(c) The impugned trade mark is identical and is registered in relation to the goods which are admittedly identical. There exists likelihood or confusion and association of the trade mark and the business of the applicant and therefore is in contravention of the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act.
(d) The adoption and use of the impugned trade mark is without justification and can never be considered as bonafide. The 1st respondent had adopted and used the trade mark “Creative” merely to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the applicants. The impugned trade mark registration is in contravention of section 11(3)(a) of the Act and therefore liable to be expunged.
(e) The impugned registration is wrongly entered in the Register and is remaining on the Register without sufficient cause being in contravention of the provisions of Sections 9(2), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3)(a) of the Act.
(f) The impugned trade mark is liable to be cancelled and expunged under Section 57(2) of the Act.
9. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned trade mark “Creative” be rectified.
10. The 1st respondent herein filed their counter statement stating that they were established as a proprietary concern in the name of “Creative Enterprises” in the year 1979. The 1st respondent’s principal business was travel consultant. In 1993, the 1st respondent obtained International Air Transport Association Passenger Sales Agency Accredition. They were operating the business “Creative Travels & Tours” as a division of “Creative Enterprises” for the year 1993 upto the year 1997. In 1997, it was incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the name and style of “Creative Tours and Travels (India) Private Limited”, with effect from November 1997, it was approved by IATA.
11. The 1st respondent is an established name in the business and is known as one of the leading travel agencies of the country. It had received various prestigious awards in the airline travel industry and had received significant and consistent accreditations and Certificates of Appreciation from various Airlines and Aircraft Carriers. For the last more than ten years, the 1st respondent has also been amongst the top ten sales agencies for Air India. The 1st respondent is registered with and is an active member of TAAI (Travel Agents Association of India), TAFI (Travel Agents Federation of India) and IATO (Indian Association of Tour Operators). They are also an agent for Haj Operators duly approved by the Government of India. They are approved agent of MTDC (Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation).
12. Their annual turnover for the year 2005-2006 alone is Rs. 100 crores. It is a matter of fact that the business turnover of the 1st respondent is more than double of business generated by the applicant.
13. The 1st respondent is the registered proprietor of the trade mark under No. 1280212 in class 39 for the mark “Creative Tours & Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd.” with a distinct colour scheme and style. The mark is registered and is subsisting. By virtue of continuous and extensive use, the 1st respondents trade mark has acquired immense reputation and goodwill from the trade and public.
14. Both the applicant and the 1st respondent are members of the trade organizations namely TAAI and IATO.
15. The 1st respondent was surprised to receive a cease and desist notice dated 22/05/2006. The 1st respondent has been carrying on business under the name “Creative” since last 27 years and to claim that they recently came to know about the respondents use is totally a false statement.
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi granted an ex parte order of injunction and subsequently vacated the same. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Division Bench. The order passed by the Division Bench has become final as no appeal has been preferred.
17. The rest of the averments made in the application were denied.
18. We heard the learned counsel Ms. Prathiba Singh for the applicant and learned counsel Shri A.A. Mohan for the 1st respondent.
19. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the application was for removal of the trade mark registered under No. 1280212 in class 39. The applicants had adopted the trade mark “Creative” as early as 1977 and were using the same continuously without any interruption. At page 318 of the respondents typed set was the impugned trade mark and at page 319 was the Trade Mark Journal Advertisement of the impugned trade mark. The impugned trade mark application was filed on 22/04/2004 claiming user since 12/08/1997. It is seen that the respondents had used it since 1997 after twenty years of the applicants use. The applicant company was incorporated in the year 1977. In 2006, the applicants came to know about the respondents use and therefore issued a cease and desist notice.
20. The mark and the goods (services) are identical and there is every possibility of confusion. The confusion was inevitable. The applicants are therefore aggrieved persons. Their sales turnover runs to several crores of rupees. The learned counsel reiterated the awards received by the applicants and their memberships in various organizations as was stated in the application for rectification.
21. At page 23 is the sales figures statement certified by their Chartered Accountant. A few membership registration certificates were also placed before us. Various awards received by the applicants are filed along with the application. The brochures along with write ups are filed. All these show the reputation earned by the applicants.
22. The applicants further stated that the respondents case is that in the year 1979, they were “Creative Enterprises”. They were well known in India and their sales turnover runs to Rs. 100 crores. The application for rectification is delayed application. The word “Creative” is descriptive. As per the respondents documents, they were registered under the Bombay, Shops and Establishments Act, only in the year 1980. It was also pointed out that their business was for recruiting travels agents as seen from the documents at page 4 and 5 of the typed set of papers filed by the respondents. According to the applicants, there is no delay.
23. At page 17 of the typed set filed by the respondents, it is seen that IATA (International Air Transport Authority) has approved the passenger sales agency only in 1993. The letter is addressed to “Creative Enterprises” which was recruiting agents. The travel agent is “Creative Travels & Tours”. This is not clear as to when “Creative Travels & Tours” was incorporated. To book a ticket, the agency must be a member of IATA. The respondent was incorporated in the year 1997. Then approval letter by IATA of the year 1993 cannot be a valid document.
24. The Registrar of Companies rejected the name. The amount in the income tax returns does not tally with the sales turnover furnished by the respondents. There was confusion in the name of the company as seen from the annual returns of the company filed before the Registrar of Companies. At page 107, the annual return of 1997-1998, it is stated as “Creative Travel & Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd.” The certificate of Appointment (Passenger) at page 210 is of the year 1996, while the respondent was incorporated in the year 1997, how this certificate could have been issued in the year 1996.
25. On 22/05/2006, a legal notice to cease and desist was issued to the respondents. The respondents in the evidence deposed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the suit had admitted that there are only two companies namely the applicant and the respondent using the trade mark “Creative” but now have produced several extracts of websites of different companies.
26. The applicants produced certain documents which was objected to by the respondents as they were filed during the course of arguments and also that no application was made for taking on record those documents.
27. The applicants produced the letter dated 02/07/1997 sent by the Registrar of Companies to the respondent suggesting that some other name be adopted, as “Creative” was not available now that it was already used by some other company. The respondent replied and wished to use the same. The respondents have not objected to the applicants averment that they had been using the same since 1977. As per the provisions of sections 11(1)(3), (4) and (10), the impugned registration is contravention to the provisions of the Act.
28. The applicants also relied on a e-mail sent by Alliance Hotels & Restaurants dated 16/06/2007 to the applicants where the respondents bills were also mentioned. The applicants therefore, stated that the confusion was certain and there was a mistake.
29. The use of an identical mark for identical services leads to passing off and is therefore, prohibited under section 11(3) of the Act. The Air ticket is booked through internet and so confusion is definite.
30. The applicants finally relied on few judgments:-
(1) 2003 (4) SCC 341 – Modi Entertainment Network & Another Vs. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. – Any order passed at the stage of interim order would not bind much less they bind the appellate court or the parties. The order passed by the civil court at the interim stage is therefore not binding this Board or the parties.
(2) u AIR 1994 (Del) 239 – Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. Vs. Hybo Hindustan & v 2006 (32) PTC 682 (Del) – Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. Vs. A.K. Bhuva & Ors. – A well known trade mark if used by any third party would definitely lead to passing off resulting in confusion.
(3) u 2005 (30) PTC 3 (SC) – Time Incorporated Vs. Lokesh Srivastava; v 2007 (34) PTC 370 (Del) – Ishi Khosla Vs. Anil Aggarwal and Anr.; w (1972) 1 SCC 618 – Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. And Co.; (1997) 6 SCC 37 – K. Shantharaj and Anr. Vs. M.L. Nagaraj and Ors.; 2009 (40) PTC 417 (Del) (DB) – Amar Singh Chawal Wala Vs. Shree Vardhman Rice and Genl. Mills; � (2007) 6 SCC 1 – Heinz Italia and Anr. Vs. Dabur India Ltd.; & � 98 (2002) DLT 499 – Info Edge (India) Pvr. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shailesh Gupta & Anr. – A descriptive trade mark is entitled to protection if it has assumed a secondary meaning identifying it with a particular product. “Creative” is not descriptive mark. Assuming it is descriptive, it is entitled to protection as it has been in use for several years.
(4) u 2008 (38) PTC 49 (Del) (DB) – Pankaj Goel Vs. Dabur India Ltd. & v (2004) 28 PTC 121 – Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors. -- Mere advertisement in the same magazine does not mean that the applicants were aware of the respondents use. Delay will not be a reason to reject an application for rectification.
(5) u 1999 PTC (19) 81 – Automatic Electric Limited Vs. R.K. Dhawan; & v 2001 PTC 363 – Rainforest Cafe, Inc. Vs. Rainforest Café & Ors. – A person claiming an exclusive right over a trade mark cannot challenge that the same is generic.
31. In reply, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the documents filed on the hearing date ought not to be considered. The sales figures given in the statement of case is only from the year 2000-2001 whereas the applicants claim user since 1977 for which no evidence has been produced. The mark of the applicants was proposed to be used in respect of class 16 goods in the year 2005.
32. The respondent was a proprietary concern in the year 1979. Their business was restricted only to Bombay and had not spread to Delhi or other places. The annual sales turnover runs to Rs. 100 crores which is supported by the Chartered Accounts certificate filed at page 281 of the typed set of papers.
33. The learned counsel also pointed out the discrepancy at pages 210 and 211 of the typed set. The learned counsel submitted that in the certificate of appointment issued by Indian Airlines in the English version it is wrongly mentioned as 1996 whereas the correct date is 16/02/1998. This clarified the doubt of the applicant as to how a certificate can be given to a company in 1996 when the company was incorporated in 1997.
34. The respondents relied on the observation of the Division Bench in the civil suit between these parties where it was held that there is no dishonesty on the part of the respondents. Relying on the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, the learned counsel submitted that the marks are to be compared as a whole. The applicants mark is a word mark whereas the impugned trade mark is a label mark, where the marks are structurally different.
35. Pointing to the applicants brochure, the respondent submitted that “Creative” is descriptive – the wordings were “Being Creative since 1977”. The applicant, the founder of Indian Association of Tour Operators has not objected to the respondents admission as member of IATO in 2002. This shows that being aware of the respondents existence as early as 2002 has not taken any action against the respondent. The word “Creative” is generic in respect of travel/tour business and used by many entities and the applicant cannot claim monopoly over the said word.
36. The respondent further submitted that their name is seen in the Members Directory of IATO as early as 2002 and the applicants were aware of the respondents mark in existence as well as the use. This was the reason the Division Bench held that “the plaintiff is guilty of latches” in the suit.
37. The applicants though claim user of the trade mark since 1977, no proof whatsoever has been produced. All the awards filed by the applicant are in the name of the individual and not in the name of the applicant company. The assessment orders are relied on by the respondents to prove their business whereas the applicants have produced only brochures without date and the Chartered Accountants Certificate. The respondents have filed the Certificate of Membership from the Travel Agents Association since 2002.
38. The respondents placed before us few judgments:-
(1) 63 RPC 39 HL – Office Clearing Services Ltd. Vs. Westminster Window and General Cleaners Ltd. – Use by a trader as part of his trade name of descriptive words already used by another person as part of his trade name is likely to cause confusion cannot be accepted.
(2) AIR 1974 AP 274 – Teju Singh Vs. Shanta Devi – Class of customers are to be considered and the marks are to be seen as a whole.
(3) Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – An unreported judgment of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Order passed in the interim stage cannot be said to have no application and also that sections 9 and 11 are to be dealt by the Registrar at the time of registration.
(4) AIR 1939 MAS 555 – Asiatic Govt. Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. – If confusion or deception not satisfied, no relief can be granted.
(5) 1999 PTC (19) 431 – Bharathiya Coffee Workers Catering Vs. Indian Coffee Workers Coop. Society – A party is not entitled to any relief if no proof of confusion placed.
(6) 1999 PTC (19) 449 – Lloyd Insulation India Ltd. Vs. Punj Lloyd Insulations India Ltd. – In case of descriptive words small differences will be taken to be sufficient in between the trade names of both the applicant and the respondent.
(7) 2011 (4) LW 55 – Aravind Laboratories Vs. Medicare – When common English words are used as part of a trade mark, then the protection available to the proprietor of such mark is likely to get diluted.
(8) AIR 1960 SC 142 – Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. – The presence of a mark on the Register does not prove its use.
(9) 2008 (37) PTC 413 – Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Scotch Whisky Association and Others – When the class of customers are educated, the test to be applied would be different. Here, only literate people purchase tickets online and therefore confusion would not arise.
(10) The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Petition between the parties on appeal against the Division Bench order in the civil suit.
39. The learned counsel also relied on section 12 of the Act and prayed that the impugned trade mark may be continued as special circumstances.
40. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that they are aggrieved persons under section 57 of the Act. The judgments relied on by the respondents were distinguished. The applicants have produced evidence of use since 1996 as the respondents use is only since 1997.
41. The provisions of section 12 is not applicable as the adoption is not honest. The Balance Sheet does not reflect Rs. 100 crores.
42. After hearing both the parties on 17/05/2012, orders were reserved. At the hearing, the applicants filed certain documents namely letter from the Registrar of Companies etc, which were public documents. The learned counsel for the respondent objected to these documents as they were not filed along with the application. We therefore, directed the applicant to file an application. The applicants therefore filed a formal application on 18/05/2012 which was numbered as M.P. No. 233/2012.
43. On 14/06/2012, the respondents filed documents – R1 to R84 running to 320 pages and prayed that those documents may be taken on file as additional documents. On 22/06/2012, the respondents filed sur. rejoinder to the rejoinder filed on 04/06/2012 by the applicants. Again on 25/07/2012, the respondents filed another Miscellaneous Petition to take on record another set of documents (36 pages).
44. On 06/08/2012, we directed the Registry to post the matter for hearing the Miscellaneous Petition. We could have kept it aside without considering these documents as they were filed after the orders were reserved, but we considered it necessary that the original application was to be heard as a suit we granted an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The learned counsel advanced their arguments only in respect of the documents on 03/09/2012.
45. The learned counsel for the applicant objected to the documents filed as R1 to R77 as they were various awards, Membership Certificates, advertisements etc. which were in their possession and had been filed as after thought. R78 to R82 were the examination recordings in the civil suit to which the applicant had no objection.
46. In reply, the respondents relied on those documents and submitted that the examination proceedings are to be considered for deciding the application for rectification.
47. We have considered the arguments of both parties and have gone through the pleadings and documents.
48. The applicants claim to be using the trade mark since 1977 whereas the applicants claim of user in the application for registration of the impugned trade mark is 12/08/1997. The respondents, but, in their counter statement state that their user is since 1977 and therefore on they coming to know of the respondents use have filed a suit for infringement and passing off. The applicants main ground of attack is that the marks are identical for identical services and there is triple identity. The possibility of confusion is inevitable and therefore the suit. A person who is engaged in the same trade, is a person aggrieved and has the locus standi to file an application for rectification.
49. It is also that the locus standi has to be decided on principles of public interest, than between the applicant and the registered proprietor. In this case on hand, the marks and the services are identical and therefore the possibility of confusion is certain. The purpose of an application for rectification is to purify the Register. The applicants are person aggrieved and have the locus standi to file their application for rectification.
50. The applicant who is a prior user of the trade mark is a person aggrieved. Both the applicant and the respondents have relied on the awards received by them in respect of appreciation of their business to prove their use. The applicants have filed the certificate of award given by Department of Tourism, Government of India for securing first place in foreign exchange earnings in the year 1979 whereas the respondents certificate of award issued by Saudi Arabian Airlines is of the year 1999. Considering these facts, we are of the view that the applicants are prior in use and registration.
51. The applicants, if claims that the impugned trade mark is wrongly entered in the Register for the reason that he is already using the trade mark for identical goods then the applicant is a person aggrieved.
52. Now, coming to the use of onus of proof, in an application for rectification, the onus is always on the applicant for rectification. In an opposition proceedings, the onus is on the applicant for registration to prove that the registration if granted would not lead to confusion. The onus is on the applicant herein to satisfy that there is confusion and would cause confusion if the mark is allowed to continue on the register.
53. The applicants had placed reliance on a e-mail demanding payment addressed to them by Alliance Hotels & Resorts to prove the case of confusion. Though the e-mail was addressed to the applicants, the respondents bill was also included. The applicants submission as to confusion was therefore satisfied.
54. When a mark is likely to cause confusion, then the mark is an entry made without sufficient cause and is wrongly remaining on the Register and therefore the mark deserves to be expunged.
55. The letter dated 02/07/1997 sent by the Registrar of Companies was that suggesting to the respondents to choose some other name as “Creative” was already registered in favour of other company. Filing of this document was in general objected to by the respondents but no reason or explanation was given nor was it denied. We therefore, are to accept the contents of this letter.
56. The respondents claim to have used the trade mark since 12/08/1997. The documents filed in support of this contention is the assessment orders, income tax returns, advertisements, awards etc. The 1st assessment order is of the year 1998 which is in the name of the individual person and not in the name of the company. The certificate of appreciation again is of the year 1998. There is no evidence of the year 1997.
57. In cases where there has been such wrong statement, the Board has remanded the mark from the Register (u IPAB Order No. 224/2011 in M/s. Khushi Ram Behari Lal Vs. M/s. New Bharat Rice Mills and Others & v IAPB Order No. 91/2012 in M/s. Times Publishing House Ltd. Vs. M/s. The Financial Times Ltd. and Others). Applying the same principle, the impugned trade mark deserves to be removed.
58. We shall now deal with the documents filed by both the parties. As regards the applicants documents filed on the hearing date, we are not looking into the deposition and other documents. The respondents have filed a set of voluminous documents running to 320 pages which are of the year 2000 and thereafter. We are of the considered opinion that these documents will be of no help to the respondents to prove their case. They will have to satisfy us as to the claimed date of use. Even though we have taken on record those documents applying the principles of natural justice as observed earlier, we think it necessary and just to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for such delayed filing that too after hearing both the parties at length and orders were reserved.
59. To conclude, the application for rectification is allowed for the reasons stated below:-
(a) the applicant is a person aggrieved;
(b) the applicant has satisfied the case of confusion;
(c) the applicants are prior users; and
(d) the respondents have not satisfied us as to the use as claimed in the application for registration.
60. The impugned trade mark is therefore directed to be expunged. The respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards costs to the applicants. The Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 232/2012 and 233/2012 are disposed of.
(V. RAVI) (S. USHA)
Technical Member Vice-Chairman
(Disclaimer: This order is being published for present information and should not be taken as a certified copy issued by the Board.)
