Romil Gupta Vs. Registrar of Trade Mark

Case Title:Romil Gupta Trading as Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.: Court:High Court of Delhi: Date of Order: May 14, 2025:Case Number:C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2023:Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3679: Name of Judge:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Facts:

The appellant, Romil Gupta, engaged in manufacturing and trading self-tapping metal screws, filed a trademark application in Class 6 on October 30, 2018, claiming user since February 27, 2013. Due to a clerical error, the applied mark was different from the intended subject mark, but the appellant sought to correct this error by amending the application. The respondent (Registrar of Trade Marks) initiated proceedings, alleging “substantial alteration” of the mark, and issued a notice under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, without providing the mandated minimum one-month notice. Subsequently, an order was passed canceling the registration of the trade mark.

Procedural Details:

• The respondent issued a notice on October 31, 2022, invoking Section 57(4), but without adhering to the prescribed notice period as mandated by Rule 100 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

• The appellant attended a hearing scheduled on November 17, 2022.

• The Registrar passed the impugned order on December 15, 2022, canceling the trademark registration.

• The appellant challenged this order in the present appeal filed under Section 91.

• The Court stayed the impugned order on January 25, 2023.
• 
  

Issues:

• Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks rightly invoked Section 57(4) based on a complaint, or if procedural violations (not adhering to the notice period) nullify the proceedings.

• Whether the amendment sought by the appellant constituted a “substantial alteration” in the mark, justifying proceedings under Section 57.

• Whether the notice issued was compliant with statutory requirements under Rule 100 and Section 57(4).

• If procedural irregularities invalidated the cancellation order.

Decision:

The Court found that:

• The notice issued under Section 57(4) did not comply with the mandatory minimum notice period of one month, violating the principles of natural justice.

• The proceedings were initiated based on a complaint and not sua motu, but the procedural rules were not properly followed.

• The order of cancellation was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.

• The Court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures and upheld the appellant’s right to proper notice.

Consequently, the cancellation order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.