MEX Switchgears Vs Vikram Suri

MEX Switchgears Pvt Ltd appealed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 against the Deputy Registrar's order dated 24.05.2018 deeming their Opposition No. 851850 to respondent Vikram Suri's Application No. 1985391 for registration of "ARMEX" as abandoned under Rule 45(2) of Trade Marks Rules 2017 for failure to file evidence in support or reliance statement within prescribed time after service of counter statement on 22.11.2017 solely via email, with the respondent served but filing no reply and remaining absent throughout proceedings. The court reasoned that Section 143 permits service of documents by leaving at or sending by post to the address for service provided in the application or notice of opposition, interpreting "leaving them at" expansively to include email only if an email ID is voluntarily provided therein as it implies consent to electronic service, but since appellant provided no email ID, email dispatch alone did not constitute valid legal service as parties have discretion to choose service address absent statutory mandate for email, rendering the abandonment order unsustainable for lack of proper service. The court set aside the impugned order without costs, directed appellant to comply with post-service statutory requirements like filing evidence within stipulated time reckoned from judgment date, with failure entailing statutory consequences.

• Service of documents under Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, must be effected by leaving them at or sending them by post to the address for service stated in the application or notice of opposition; service by email is permissible only if an email ID is provided as part of the address for service, as it conveys consent to such mode [M/S MEX Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading as M/S Armex Auto Industries, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022, Paras 7-8].
• Where no email ID is provided in the notice of opposition, sending documents solely by email does not constitute valid service under Section 143, even if sent to the opponent's actual email, as the choice of service address vests with the party and the Registry must adhere strictly to the provided address [M/S MEX Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading as M/S Armex Auto Industries, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022, Paras 9-10].
• An order deeming opposition abandoned under Rule 45(2) of Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for non-filing of evidence due to improper service is liable to be set aside, with the opponent directed to comply with evidentiary requirements from the date of the appellate judgment [M/S MEX Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading as M/S Armex Auto Industries, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022, Paras 12-15].

Case Title: MEX Switchgears Vs Vikram Suri Order date: 13.10.2023 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2022 Neutral Citation: Not Available Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] [Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]