Sistema Shyam Tele Services Ltd. (Causing a threat to national security)

[bking]

Good evening folks.

Through the medium of this prestigious forum, I wish to seek recognition for the problem that me and my family have been dealing with.

"MTS" (Manisha Tele Sanchar) has been a registered trademark owned by us .
We now want your support.

I humbly request you all to please check the synopsis of the criminal complaint that has been filed already and pour out your views.

Note to Mods: Please move to the appropriate section.





SYNOPSIS OF CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST SSTL, SHYAM TELECOM LTD. & CUSTOM AUTHORITIES (IMPORT)


1. SSTL & Mobile Tele System, Moscow (Russia) filed a ground less petition against our company who is prior user & Regd. Prop. of MTS Trade Mark for the items classified & defined under Class-9 of Trade Mark Act, 1999.


2. Before filing this groundless petition, M/s. Mobile Tele System made request to our company on many occasion to have usage right of MTS Brand under Class-9 with evasive proposals which were not agreed between us.


3. Our company in January, 2014 had launched Mobile Phones under MTS Brand with legal & valid IMEI Nos. procured from MSAI a designated & reporting body of GSMA in India. As these IMEI/MEID Nos. of a Mobile Phone is a unique No. and just like Registration No. of a vehicle which tells about Brand, Model & Manufacturer.


4. After our launch of MTS Mobile this unscrupulous company M/s. Mobile Tele System, Moscow, Russia had published a fake Trade Notice, which disturbed our market infrastructure & put us to heavy loss.


5. SSTL being Regd. user by virtue of Brand usage Agreement executed with Mobile Tele System, Moscow, Russia secretly engaged in infringing our Regd. Trade Mark MTS without any publicity of devices but advertised about its MTS Network only.


6. This fact of infringement of our user right, our company came to know when this company SSTL along with Mobile Tele System, Moscow, Russia filed this groundless petition against us in the Court.


7. Immediately our Company made a Counter Claim against this groundless petition alleging that SSTL in connivance with a company M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd., engaged in importing duplicate of MTS Branded Mobile Phones/Data Cards with wrong & fake IMEI/MEID Nos. & managing illegal import by violating the Gazette Notifications issued in bid of National Security by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India and by violating the Custom Act, 1962 Section 11(2).


8. After filing our Counter Claim in the Hon’ble Court there was no reply from SSTL nor from Mobile Tele System, Russia for defending our allegation.


9. Finally Court has closed their right to file the reply to the counter claim.


10. Meaning thereby SSTL deliberately with an intention in connivance with M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd., Delhi engaged in sale of duplicate of MTS Brand Mobile Phones with fake & wrong IMEI/MEID Nos. to the innocent customers with MTS Service Connections.


11. SSTL being a service provider company in Telecommunication field having knowledge about importance of legal & valid IMEI/MEID Nos. Now reason to be believed that SS TL intentionally engaged in anti National activities & prone to collect revenue by any illegal means. As, SSTL being service provider knows very well that services cannot be completed without the support of Mobile Devices/Data Cards. Thus posed a serious threat to our national Security as these IMEI/MEID Nos. which are not allotted in favour of MTS Brand & are not updated in the current data base of Telecom Network Providers in India because these IMEI/MEID Nos. are not co-ordinated with MSAI for up-dation on Indian Telecom Network as these IMEI/MEID Nos. have jurisdiction as per the guidelines of GSMA (copy enclosed).


12. This SSTL has violated the National Security clause of GSMA/MSAI agreement executed between Manufacture/ Importer & MSAI.


13. SSTL has violated the instructions communicated vide Letter No.20-40/BS-III/(Pt.)(Vol.I)/201 dated 03.09.2009 regarding directions to meet out requirement for National Security. Compliance which should be made by 15th Dec. 2009 & it has come to notice under RTI reply that SSTL has not made any compliance till date. It means SSTL is not bothered about National Security & main aim is to earn money only by any means (copy enclosed).


14. SSTL & Shyam Telecom Ltd., along with Custom Authority (Import) have ignored & violated the all Act & policies promulgated by Govt. of India.


15. SSTL besides this has also violated the FEMA Act & RBI policy in transferring Brand Royalty to its foreign counter part M/s. Mobile Tele System, Moscow, Russia under free route through RBI which attract the violation of Intellectual property (I.P.) user right and of chief provisions issued by govt. of India regarding Franchising Brand/Trade Mark in India. This is a direct loss to our Indian economy in term of our foreign currency.


16. SSTL has violated the terms & conditions of the license agreement, executed between Deptt. of Telecom, Govt. of India & Service provider Co., in term of infringement of other intellectual property & in non compliance of directions to meet requirement for National Security.


17. Being aggrieved we made request on dated 24.08.2015 (copy enclosed) for registration of complaint in the interest of our Nation on account of violation of Notifications to the different 37 Govt. agencies to initiate a legal action under relevant Section of Cr. PC Act as per the list enclosed.


18. After a long passage of time i.e. more than 7 months where we feel Govt. has not gauged the gravity of our complaint judicially in the interest of National Security hazard & it seems that SSTL has managed our complain dated 24.08.2015 and the Govt. Officers handling this case seems to be kept the case under carpet so that the accused parties may get free leverage over the issue & not bothered to take any action.


19. We request through Hon’ble Court to issue notice to the accused parties SSTL & Shyam Telecom Ltd., & Commissioner Import to provide the documents as under :-


(a) The valid & legal Trade Mark Registration Certificate for MTS Brand for the items defined under Class-9 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 either in favour of SSTL & Shyam Telecom Ltd., so submitted to Custom Authorities (Import) in releasing banned/prohibited consignment of Mobile Phones/Data Cards.


(b) Who was the authority concerned permitted him to import the said banned/prohibited consignments of duplicate branded Mobile Handsets/Data Cards under MTS Brand to Shyam Telecom Ltd., having regd. office at C-165, Phase-I, Nariana Indl. Area, New Delhi - 110028 in concert with SSTL procured duplicate brand Mobile Handsets/Data Cards under MTS Brand with fake & wrong IMEI/MEID Nos.


(c) M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd., in what way managed to dare banned/prohibited above said consignments from the checkout point of the Custom Authorities.


(d) M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd., before Custom Authorities must have given declaration of IMEI/MEID Nos. in favour of MTS Brand and must have co-ordinated with Indian designated & reporting body of GSMA i.e. MSAI to update these IMEI/MEID Nos. in current data base of Indian Telecom Network providers in favour of MTS. If so, the said company be asked the copy of declaration or the Custom Authorities be asked to provide the copy of declaration to access the authenticity of the IMEI/MEID Nos. & be asked to produce the entire Import data from Jan. 2009 to till date of MTS Branded Mobile Phones & Data Cards.


(e) Whether Shyam Telecom Ltd., (Importer Company) has provided the MEID/IMEI Nos. status in favour of MTS Brand and have complied the Notifications issued by the Union Govt. in the bid of our National Security.


(f) Whether SSTL has given leverage under unified Telecom license agreement to allow bundling the other company’s brand without their consent. But bundling provision does not spell out in unified license agreement, moreover unified license agreement restricts the service provider not to violate other’s intellectual property right, which attracts the violation of the conditions mentioned under unified license agreement.


(g) SSTL & M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd., be asked to produce their ESN/MEID/IMEI Nos. in favour of MTS Brand under Class-9 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 to establish their ownership right regarding MTS Brand as both the companies claimed.


(h) How SSTL managed to transfer the brand royalty on the revenue collected on account of misused & misdeclaration of our Regd. Trade Mark MTS on the devices falling under class-9 as per the Trade Mark Act and which does not spell out as per Brand Usage Agreement by violating the FEMA Act provisions & by keeping the RBI into dark with respect to the provision issued by Govt. of India in term of franchising Brand/Trade Mark in India. (As explained in Para No.11 & 15).

1. How SSTL and or M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd., has managed to get BIS Registration No. R-41024139 and this registration overruled all Act, Policies and Notifications issued by Govt. of India in the interest of Nation and provide leverage to the unscrupulous company to import banned/prohibited consignments of Mobile Phones/Data Cards with wrong & fake MEID/IMEI Nos.

(j) Whether BIS Authority have cross checked about the authenticity of the declaration given by this unscrupulous company for ownership of MTS Brand from the website of Controller General of Patent, Design & Trade Mark which is publically available on its Domain.


(k) Whether BIS ever queried about the status of MEID/IMEI Nos. in favour of MTS Brand Mobile Phones which are going to be sold in the India market and if the same was queried by BIS authority, then this Registration No. could not be granted.


It is further prayed to this Hon’ble Court to issue notice to the Govt. agencies as per the list enclosed to know the status of the action taken on our complaint dated 24/08/2015.


We pray the Hon’ble Court to provide relief on the following :


1) That direction may be forwarded to Deptt. of Telecom Govt. of India to frame a policy with cutt off date to start up GII (Genuine IMEI/MEID Implantation programme to curb out the damage risk of National Security & expenses for the same be borne by the accused party SSTL & Shyam Telecom Ltd.,


2) SSTL may directed to brought back the devices immediately which were deliberately & intentionally offered with fake & wrong IMEI/MEID Nos. to the innocent customers under sale or with MTS service connection through commercial dishonesty & illegal trade practices.


3) Direction may please be forwarded to RBI & Enforcement Directorate to initiate process to reverse back the brand royalty so paid by committing commercial dishonesty & illegal trade practices.


4) Direction may please be forwarded to police authority to initiate legal action against the accused party under relevant sections of the Cr. PC Act for the offences committed intentionally against Nation.


5) Orders may be passed to stop the merger activity of SSTL with Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Reliance Group till the disposal of this case.

 

[vivek.krishnan]

Although i did not get much of what has been posted, are you trying to stop Jio....?

After reading what has been posted, I am still confused, as to who is making the phones, and who is selling what. Also, what @Lord Nemesis has posted seems correct, factually, as I am no lawyer either.

 

[ivhere]

Could you elaborate, please?

 

[Lord Nemesis]

So, let me get this straight. Mobile Tele Systems which was established in 1993 and its Indian division established in 2008 sues Manisha Tele Sanchar established in 2012 for trademark infringement and you wish to claim that Manisha Tele Sanchar is the real owner of the trademark and that Mobile Tele Systems (which is a older reputed company with a large user base) is a fraud company and that somehow in the whole ordeal, our national security is compromised. Further for whatever other random inexplicable reason, you want their merger with reliance to be stopped.

Looking at the trademark database, You definitely have trademark registered for class 9 whose applicability is below

Class 9 . Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire extinguishing apparatus

However you say that you started selling mobile phones in 2014 with the same MTS trademark. From what I can see, there is a separate class 38 for telecom and I guess you probably need trademark under that class as well to use it for telecom equipment like mobile phones.

Class 38. Telecommunications.

Mobile Tele Systems has several registered trademarks including on the word "MTS" itself in 2009 and valid till 2020. So how are you selling mobile phones with the MTS trademark without class 38 registration?
Does look like they Mobile Tele Systems have sound basis to sue you.

One another thing to consider is that trademark system is in place to protect an entity by stopping somebody else from using the good will/reputation/recognition it acquired in the market. In this case, Mobile Tele Systems has much higher and wider repute than your company. A company can have an implicit trademark based on recognition without local registration.

India recognizes the concept of the "Well-known Trademark" and the "Principle of Trans Border Reputation". A well-known Trademark in relation to any goods or services means a mark that has become so to the substantial segment of the public, which uses such goods or receives such services such that the use of such a mark in relation to other goods and services is likely to be taken as indicating a connection between the two marks.

Trans Border Reputation concept was recognised and discussed by the Apex Indian Court in the landmark case of N. R. Dongre v. Whirlpool (1996) 5SCC 714. The Trademark "WHIRLPOOL" was held to have acquired reputation and goodwill in India. The Mark "WHIRLPOOL" was also held to have become associated in the minds of the public with Whirlpool Corporation on account of circulation of the advertisements in the magazines despite no evidence of actual sale. Hence, the trademark WHIRLPOOL was held to have acquired trans-border reputation which enjoys protection in India, irrespective of its actual user or registration in India.

http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/127680/Trademark/Trademarks+Law+In+India+Everything+You+Must+Know

 

[bking]

@Lord Nemesis

Mobile tele systems who were registered in Russia have no base in India. They also do not have any registered office/liaison/camp office in India. They are only the brand partner without any equity participation with the joint venture company namely: Sistema Shyam Tele Services Ltd.

FYI Mobile Tele Systems, Russia is a telecommunications service providing company established as per the rules and regulations of the Russian federation and they are proving telecommunications services under the brand name of MTC in Russia since 1993 but not as MTS. They re-branded their service mark MTC as MTS in March 2006 in Russia and till that time, there was no existence or usage and brand awareness in India of MTS as a telecommunications service provider.

We, our company as a proprietor innovated this brand 'MTS' in the October of 2006 and applied for registration with the competent authorities that is controller general of design, patent and trademarks govt. of India in March 2007 with the user detail of 1-10-2006.
This unscrupulous company entered into a brand usage agreement with a newly formed joint venture company, Namely: Sistema Shyam Tele Services Ltd., registered and incorporated under the provision
of Company's Act on dated-21 January 2009 and this company, Mobile Tele Systems, Russia applied for brand registration with the competent authority of India in the December of 2008 with a user detail -"proposed to be used".


Till the time the status applied for registration was under due consideration by the competent authority of India and the authority published in the trademark journal for inviting objections. Being a prior user, we opposed their application in the feb of 2010. On receipt of our opposition, the competent authority after scrutinizing the status of our application on the basis of our prior usage in India,has rejected/turned down their application and awarded us a registration certificate under class 9 for MTS brand name. This brand usage agreement executed b/w Mobile Telesystems, Russia and Sistema Shyam Tele Services India, is only for a limited use under class 16,37,38 and 42. This brand usage agreement does not spell out to use this MTS brand for the devices/goods falling under class 9 of trademark act-1999.


It means, the company, Sistema Shyam Tele Services Ltd., having registered office at Jaipur have intentionally/deliberately misused our registered MTS brand on the devices/goods required to complete their services as they are fully aware that their services cannot be completed without the support of
class 9 products where they are not registered. To manage such type of illegal activities, the company, Sistema Shyam Tele Services Ltd. have conspired with its foster company M/s Shyam Telecom Ltd. having registered office at C-165, Phase 1, Naraina industrial Area,, New Delhi-28, to import duplicate mobile handsets/ Data cards under MTS brand
with fake/non-genuine/invalid/wrong
IMEI/MEID no.s by violating the gazette notification issued on security concerns by DGFT, Ministry Of Commerce Govt. Of India, and also by violating the TRAI guidelines which explicitly say that before allowing the mobile handsets into India, custom authorities(import)are under obligation to verify the authenticity of the IMEI/MEID nos for the brand being imported into India.

It means that custom authorities have intentionally ignored this gazette notification who were managed by the importer company, M/s Shyam Telecom Ltd. They also violated the provisions of section-11(2) of custom Act-1962 and allowed such illegal banned/prohibited consignments of mobile handsets/data cards with fake/wrong/non-genuine/invalid IMEI/MEID nos which are not allotted in favour of MTS brand nor in favour of importer company and these IMEI/MEID no.s are also not available in the database of MSAI-the designated/reporting body of GSMA in India and also not updated with the Indian Telecom Network thus the company SSTL(Sistema Shyam Tele Serivies Ltd. ) is creating a threatening atmosphere to our national security and putting our nation on the brim danger intentionally and without any fear of law.

We, our company made an RTI application to know about the compliance of the instructions issued on National Security by the dept. of telecom, govt. of India on dated-3-09-2009.

We were shocked by the reply of the Department Of Telecom to know that this unscrupulous company(SSTL) being a telecom service provider having knowledge about importance of legal and valid IMEI nos
has not made any compliance to the instructions of national security till date which is to be made mandatorily by 31-12-2009.

In response to your query received, we have elaborated the facts of our prior usage of MTS brand and about the business activities conducted by this unscrupulous company SSTL on the basis of illegal trade practices and commercial dishonestly who cheated the innocent customers by providing the duplicate product under MTS brand as genuine.

I request you to please go through the synopsis again judicially and if you deem fit, I request you to flourish this news through social media and any other means possible.

You can check about the registration dates and statuses on www.ipindia.nic.in


If you have any other queries, we ll be pleased to hear you.

Thanks,
Regards

 

[avi]

Is MTS Network really the company which you worked for? Because if it is I want to take this opportunity to tell you that your network and service suck big time. One of the worst companies which I've come across.

Bhai atleast read the post :|

 

[Lord Nemesis]

You are mixing up trademark dispute with other issues which which are separate (I guess probably deliberate). My understanding of trademarks is limited and I am no lawyer, but what I know is that trademarks don't work the way you seem to think they should. Trademark laws exist to protect entities from others who try to ride on their reputation and recognition in the market. The goal is to prevent a person who holds your brand in high esteem from buying their product thinking that it was made by you and then you taking the hit when the product doesn't live up to the consumers expectations.

Further, registration process does not give complete dibs over the trademark. It is just formalizing the process. A well established brand can defend even without any registration because they have an implicitly recognized trademark.

As per Wiki, in 2008, MTS was featured in the Top 100 world's most powerful brands of Financial Times. So it has widespread renown even at the time. Further, when it was introduced in India, they saw very rapid growth. They have over 10 million subscribers for just their mobile/internet services in India and over 100 million world wide. SSTL as I can see is a fully owned subsidiary of Sistema, the same holding company that holds MTS as well. So they are the same entity or at least belong to the same entity.

MTS registered their trademarks under class 38 and few other classes back in 2009. You did not have mobile services or mobile phones till last 2 years. Manisha Tele Sanchar was never associated as a mobile phones vendor or for mobile/internet services.

It would be a different matter your company were already a well established brand for these or related products, but that is not the case. You have little to no brand recognition even in the Indian markets. I have never seen any products of yours. In fact, I never even heard about this company till this thread. However, me and thousands of others on these forums alone know the Mobile Tele Systems brand well enough even if we have not used their products and services and their offerings are available and recognized. If I search MTS in google, the first 3 pages does not contain a single reference to your reference to your company. Most of the links are related to Mobile Tele Systems.

In fact, most people have a chance of mistaking your products to be product of theirs and some who know their brand markings better may even think you as a rip of brand. You would be hard pressed to prove that your company is losing reputation and market value by people mistaking their products for yours when they have the much wider recognition.

Have you tried to defend your trademarks in courts back in 2007~2009 or any time till 2014? In countries that use this common trademark framework, if you do not defend your brands/trademarks, you lose the ability to defend them at a later point of time. This is why most big companies aggressively defend their trademarks with "shoot first and ask questions latter" attitude without first considering whether its fair use scenario. Not sure if that applies to India as well.

Lastly, why are you looking to spread the matter on social media if you are confident about your legal position? Sorry if I sound harsh, but at a glance, you seem to be trying to appeal to the bogus nationalists in the country (the same kind that bashed British Airways for asking for Sachin Tendulkar's last name and sent rape and death threats to Maria Sharapova) by painting MTS and SSTL as an enemy of the country and garner sympathy, but even more importantly start building public recognition via the dispute at least as it could help with the case if you can show that at least some people knows your brand.

 

[iPwnz]

Read and stopped halfway. Two companies with similar name abbrv. "MTS" but with different meanings in legal battle. And when i read MTS i assumed that it was the network walla in Delhi which the OP is based in.
For @avi

 

[bking]

@Lord Nemesis

I don't think you are reading what i posted properly. We have the rights to the brand MTS, we are the prior user and and they are using our brand and providing handsets with fake imei/meid nos. Does that look like a separate and deliberate issue to you and not a threat to national security?

Don't you think that whatever phones they sold can cause any kind of threat and cannot be even traced because their information is not available anywhere in the indian database as i mentioned above.


And on the defending trademark part, did you not read that we opposed their application for registration in Feb 2010?

Did you not read that they have tried to settle this matter out of court a lot of times with evasive means before filing the petition in court?


Again please i would request you to read the scenario clearly.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

I don't think you are reading what i posted properly. We have the rights to the brand MTS, we are the prior user and and they are using our brand and providing handsets with fake imei/meid nos.

Do you mean to say that you were selling MTS branded handsets prior to 2008 before that company entered India. I thought you said your handset business came much later in 2014. The main point to note is that you have little to no brand recognition while theirs in 2008 was recognized as one of the top 100 strongest brands in the world. If somebody were to see a MTS branded handset, would they link it with your company or with Mobile Tele Systems?

Does that look like a separate and deliberate issue to you and not a threat to national security?

Don't you think that whatever phones they sold can cause any kind of threat and cannot be even traced because their information is not available anywhere in the indian database as i mentioned above.

Yes, they are separate issues. The first issue is about trademark infringement, the second is about missing registration for IMEI and flouting of regulations.
It has nothing to do with the trademark infringement suit. It is a separate issue and has to be dealt with. You can be the one filing the complaints in public interest, But I don't see how you are linking the two cases.

And on the defending trademark part, did you not read that we opposed their application for registration in Feb 2010?

Did you not read that they have tried to settle this matter out of court a lot of times with evasive means before filing the petition in court?

Did you send a cease and desist sort of notice to them and followed it up with court proceedings on non-compliance? That is what defending your trademark means. What action was taken in response to that case?

Despite your registration under class 9, They already had recognition as one of the top 100 worldwide powerful brands back in 2008 and so most likely they would be recognized to have an implicit trademark and a strong claim to boot compared to yours. How are you going to prove that your brand is tarnished when you have no brand recognition to speak of and they have substantial recognition.

Lastly, I ask again why you are seeking publicity in the social media if you are so sure about your legal position in the case.

 

[iPwnz]

Just wondering, what kind of "help" are you looking for or expecting by posting it on forums? Would be better if you go directly to the regulator/govt./police. Though i agree the other group looks like some very shady company.

 

[bking]

Do you mean to say that you were selling MTS branded handsets prior to 2008 before that company entered India. I thought you said your handset business came much later in 2014. The main point to note is that you have little to no brand recognition while theirs in 2008 was recognized as one of the top 100 strongest brands in the world. If somebody were to see a MTS branded handset, would they link it with your company or with Mobile Tele Systems?.

We did not advertise through televisions or commercials but we did it through pamphlets and word of mouth.

Yes, they are separate issues. The first issue is about trademark infringement, the second is about missing registration for IMEI and flouting of regulations.
It has nothing to do with the trademark infringement suit. It is a separate issue and has to be dealt with. You can be the one filing the complaints in public interest, But I don't see how you are linking the two cases.

Again they are not separate issues because we have the IMEI nos that are allotted to the brand name MTS in India and the phones that the importer company SSTL is selling don't.

Did you send a cease and desist sort of notice to them and followed it up with court proceedings on non-compliance? What is what defending your trademark means.

They were not granted the trademark and their application was rejected and we were given our trademark registration certificate.

Despite your registration under class 9, They already had recognition as one of the top 100 worldwide powerful brands back in 2008 and so most likely they would be recognized to have an implicit trademark and a strong claim to boot compared to yours. How are you going to prove that your brand is tarnished when you have no brand recognition to speak of and they have substantial recognition.

Lastly, I ask again why you are seeking publicity in the social media if you are so sure about your legal position in the case

I kind of get your point, there is no point in discussing this on social media. [DOUBLEPOST=1460282270][/DOUBLEPOST]

Just wondering, what kind of "help" are you looking for or expecting by posting it on forums? Would be better if you go directly to the regulator/govt./police. Though i agree the other group looks like some very shady company.

Its already been submitted to the police and to crime branch delhi, govt authorities such as home ministry, telecom ministry, CBI, Economic offense wing, IB , Enforcement directorate FEMA, DRI, NIA, RBI (Foreign Exchange Control Dept.) and to the Honorable Prime Minister and we hope the investigation is under process because the complainant has not received any outcome of the complaint till date. I just wanted to make people aware so that they stop buying their products. Also since the Russian govt. has a stake in SSTL, it can be possible the govt. authority has not been taking any serious action against the company all because of that stake.
Otherwise, what is the compulsion that after the passing of this 8 months time, the complainant has not received any outcome. We are now planning to file an RTI to know the status of the investigation on the complaint made to different govt. agencies on dated 24-8-15 followed with a reminder dated 2-3-2016.

[DOUBLEPOST=1460282614][/DOUBLEPOST]Please check the below attached screenshots.

 

[iPwnz]

Well before this thread I never knew such a company under the same abbrv. "MTS" existed.
And you said launching phones under the MTS brand, are the phones rebranded/imported like the other smartphone local brands?

 

[bking]

It is also pertinent to mention here that class 38 is a telecommunications services class and it is meant for services only and the law does not give any liberty to use the MTS brand on the devices class 9 without any consent from the registered owner.