Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) vs Registrar of Trade Marks

Introduction  

This case study explores a Delhi High Court judgment addressing procedural compliance in trademark opposition proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellant challenged an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks that appeared to question the validity of evidence filed in support of an opposition due to the late submission of the original copy. The court’s decision delves into the interpretation of Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, balancing strict adherence to procedural requirements with the substantive rights of the parties. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness by allowing minor procedural lapses to be rectified without prejudicing the opposing party, offering a pragmatic approach to trademark litigation.

Factual Background  

The appellant, Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF), engaged in opposition proceedings against a trademark application filed by the second respondent. The respondent filed trademark application number 3426674 on December 6, 2016, which was advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 1924 on October 21, 2019. The appellant lodged a notice of opposition on February 20, 2020, followed by the respondent’s counterstatement dated June 15, 2020, served on the appellant on February 13, 2023. Under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the appellant was required to file evidence in support of opposition (EISO) within two months, by April 13, 2023. The appellant dispatched the EISO via courier on March 30, 2023, received by the Registrar on April 3, 2023, and served on the respondent, appearing timely. However, the appellant inadvertently sent only a copy, not the original, prompting a Registrar’s note on June 21, 2023, requesting the original. The appellant promptly dispatched the original on June 28, 2023, received on June 30, 2023, and uploaded to the e-portal on July 3, 2023. The respondent subsequently filed its evidence, escalating the dispute.

Procedural Background  

The trademark application process commenced with the respondent’s filing on December 6, 2016, leading to its advertisement and the appellant’s opposition in 2020. The counterstatement’s service on February 13, 2023, triggered the evidence filing timeline, with the appellant’s initial submission on April 3, 2023, followed by the original’s dispatch after the Registrar’s note. The Registrar’s actions, including the note and subsequent handling, led to the impugned order dated November 3, 2023, which the appellant perceived as questioning the EISO’s validity. This prompted the appellant to file an appeal, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2024, with an interlocutory application I.A. 3379/2024, under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the Delhi High Court. The matter was adjudicated orally on April 21, 2025.

Core Dispute  

The central issue was whether the Registrar’s order correctly addressed the appellant’s failure to initially submit the original EISO, and whether this lapse justified any adverse action against the opposition. The appellant contended that the EISO was filed within the two-month period under Rule 45, with the original’s late submission being a clerical error rectified promptly, and that the respondent suffered no prejudice. The Registrar and respondent argued that the absence of the original at the outset might undermine the opposition’s procedural integrity, though the exact stance of the impugned order remained unclear from the excerpt. The dispute centered on interpreting the requirement of “leaving” evidence with the Registrar and the permissibility of subsequent rectification.

Discussion on Judgments  

The court referenced Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co., 1990 Supp SCC 157, cited to support the principle that procedural rules should not defeat justice, applied here to excuse the appellant’s initial omission of the original EISO. Another case, M/s. Pankaj Mehra v. M/s. Dy. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9276, was invoked to affirm that minor procedural lapses do not invalidate filings if the intent and substance are preserved, used to justify accepting the belated original. No additional judgments were cited by the parties or the court in the provided excerpt.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge  

Justice Amit Bansal commenced by reviewing the timeline, confirming that the EISO was dispatched and received within the two-month window from February 13, 2023, satisfying Rule 45’s temporal requirement. The judge noted the appellant’s inadvertent error in sending only a copy, discovered via the Registrar’s note, and the swift rectification by dispatching the original on June 28, 2023. Emphasizing that “leaving” evidence with the Registrar under Rule 45 implies making it available, the judge found the initial filing sufficient, with the original’s submission curing any technical defect. Drawing on precedents, the judge underscored that procedural rules serve justice, not formalism, and the respondent’s ability to file evidence indicated no prejudice. The impugned order’s intent was interpreted as a procedural clarification rather than a rejection, warranting no interference.

Final Decision  

The appeal was disposed of, upholding the procedural validity of the appellant’s EISO filing. The court directed the Registrar to proceed with the opposition on merits, considering the evidence on record, with no costs imposed.

Law Settled in This Case  

This judgment clarifies that under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, “leaving” evidence with the Registrar includes timely dispatch and receipt of a copy, with the original’s subsequent submission permissible to rectify clerical errors, provided no prejudice ensues to the opposing party. It establishes that minor procedural lapses do not invalidate opposition evidence if rectified promptly, reinforcing the principle that substantive trademark rights prevail over technical non-compliance.

Case Details – Case Title: Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) vs Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr, Date of Order: 21st April, 2025, Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2024, Neutral Citation: Not available, Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, and Name of Judge: Amit Bansal.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal: "Procedural Rectification in Trademark Oppositions: Delhi High Court’s 2025 Ruling", "Evidence Filing Under Rule 45: Balancing Form and Substance in Raj Vardhan Patodia Case", "Judicial Flexibility in IP Proceedings: Insights from the 2025 Trade Mark Appeal", "Original vs. Copy: Upholding Opposition Evidence Despite Clerical Errors", "Substantive Justice in Trademark Law: Interpreting Trade Marks Rules in 2025".