Coldsmiths Retail Services Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks

**Introduction**  

Trademark registration in India provides protection for a fixed period, but owners must renew it on time to keep the mark alive on the official register. The law requires the Trade Marks Registry to send advance notices before expiry so that proprietors can apply for renewal. When these notices are not properly served due to errors in the registry records—such as outdated agent details—the proprietor may miss the renewal window entirely. The Delhi High Court’s decision in this writ petition highlights the Registry’s responsibility to maintain accurate records of proprietors and authorized agents after changes like assignment or agent revocation. It shows that procedural lapses by the Registry can prevent fair opportunity for renewal, and courts will step in under writ jurisdiction to correct such injustices and direct renewal where the proprietor acted diligently.

**Factual Background**  

A company originally called Nirula’s Corner House Private Limited registered eight trademarks many years ago. Later, it assigned all these marks to Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited through a proper assignment deed. At the same time, the original owner revoked the authority of its previous agent and appointed a new authorized agent, informing the Trade Marks Registry through the required forms. The Registry updated the name of the new owner (the petitioner) in its records for all the marks. However, it failed to update the name of the authorized agent and continued to show the old agent’s name. When the registration period was nearing its end, the Registry sent renewal reminder notices—but it sent them only to the old (revoked) agent and not to the current agent or the petitioner. As a result, neither the petitioner nor its authorized agent received any notice about the impending expiry. The registrations lapsed, and when the petitioner later tried to renew the marks, the online system refused, stating the delay was too long. The petitioner then approached the High Court, arguing that the Registry’s mistake in not updating the agent details and not serving notices correctly deprived it of the chance to renew on time.

**Procedural Background**  

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, asking the court to stop the Registry from removing the marks from the register due to non-renewal and to direct the Registry to renew them. The Registry appeared through government counsel but did not strongly contest the factual sequence of events. The matter was heard, judgment was reserved, and the decision was delivered shortly thereafter. The court examined the forms filed by the petitioner and the assignment documents, along with screenshots from the Registry’s own portal showing the errors in agent details.

**Reasoning and Decision of Court**  

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela accepted the petitioner’s case that the Registry was fully aware of the change in ownership and the appointment of the new agent because the necessary forms had been submitted well in time. Despite this knowledge, the Registry did not correct the agent’s name in its records and wrongly continued to treat the old agent as authorized. Because of this error, the mandatory advance notices for renewal were never received by the petitioner or its current agent. The court held that the Registry has a statutory duty to maintain accurate records and to ensure proper communication of important notices, especially when it has been informed of changes through official forms. Failing to do so amounts to a violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to renew the marks. The court emphasized that the petitioner had acted diligently by filing the required documents and attempting renewal as soon as it became aware of the lapse. In these circumstances, the lapse could not be held against the petitioner. The court therefore directed the Registry to renew all the eight trademarks with effect from their original expiry date and to restore them on the register without treating the delay as fatal.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

This judgment settles that when the Trade Marks Registry is duly informed through prescribed forms about a change in ownership or authorized agent, it is legally bound to update its records accurately and to send all future statutory communications—including renewal notices—only to the current proprietor or the newly authorized agent. Failure to make such corrections and serving notices on outdated or revoked agents deprives the proprietor of natural justice and a reasonable opportunity to comply with renewal requirements. In such cases of Registry error, courts exercising writ jurisdiction will intervene to direct renewal of the marks retrospectively, treating the delay as not attributable to any fault of the proprietor, so long as the proprietor has acted diligently and in good faith.

**Case Detail**  

**Title:** Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks  

**Date of Order:** 17 February 2026  

**Case Number:** W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2025, CM 162/2025 & CM 164/2025  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:1332  

**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi  

**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela  

**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice 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  

**Suggested Titles:**  

- Delhi High Court Directs Retrospective Renewal of Trademarks Due to Registry’s Failure to Update Agent Details  

- Trade Marks Registry’s Error in Not Updating Authorized Agent Leads to Court-Ordered Renewal  

- Writ Relief Granted: High Court Restores Lapsed Trademarks After Registry’s Communication Lapse  

- Natural Justice in Trademark Renewal – Delhi HC Protects Proprietor from Registry’s Procedural Mistake  

**Suggested Tags:** #TrademarkRenewal #TradeMarksAct #DelhiHighCourt #WritPetition #RegistrarOfTradeMarks #NonRenewal #AuthorizedAgent #RegistryError #IPLitigation #TrademarkRestoration #NaturalJustice #TrademarkLawIndia  

**Headnote**  

Writ petition under Article 226 allowed — Direction to Registrar of Trade Marks to renew eight registered trademarks retrospectively from date of expiry — Registry failed to update records of authorized agent despite filing of prescribed Forms TM-P and TM-M reflecting change of ownership and revocation of previous agent — Renewal notices under Section 25(3) wrongly sent to revoked old agent instead of current agent — Petitioner deprived of opportunity to renew due to Registry’s error — Petitioner acted diligently and in good faith — Lapse not attributable to petitioner — Marks directed to be restored on Register without treating delay as fatal.

======

**Brief Summary**  

A company assigned its eight registered trademarks to the petitioner and properly informed the Trade Marks Registry by filing the required forms to update the owner’s name and change the authorized agent, revoking the previous agent. The Registry updated the owner’s name but failed to correct the agent’s name in its records. Renewal notices were sent only to the old revoked agent, so neither the petitioner nor its current agent received them. The registrations expired, and when the petitioner tried to renew, the system blocked it due to excessive delay. The petitioner filed a writ petition claiming the Registry’s error prevented it from renewing in time. The Court agreed that the Registry had been duly informed of the agent change yet wrongly continued using the old agent for communications, breaching its duty to maintain accurate records and ensure proper service of notices. This lapse denied the petitioner a fair chance to renew. Since the petitioner acted diligently, the Court directed the Registry to renew all eight trademarks retrospectively from their expiry date and restore them on the register.

**Points of Law Settled**  

- Once the Trade Marks Registry receives prescribed forms notifying a change in authorized agent and revocation of the previous agent, it is statutorily obliged to update its records accordingly and direct all future communications—including Section 25(3) renewal notices—only to the current agent or proprietor (Paras 10–12, 15–17).  

- Failure by the Registry to correct agent details despite being informed through official Forms TM-P and TM-M, resulting in renewal notices being sent to a revoked agent, constitutes a serious procedural error and violation of natural justice, depriving the proprietor of reasonable opportunity to renew (Paras 13–16).  

- In writ proceedings under Article 226, where non-renewal/lapse is solely attributable to the Registry’s failure to act on notified changes and not to any fault or negligence of the proprietor, the Court will direct retrospective renewal and restoration of the marks on the Register, disregarding the delay caused by the Registry’s mistake (Paras 18–20).  

- A proprietor who diligently files assignment documents, updates agent details, and attempts renewal upon discovering the lapse demonstrates good faith, entitling it to equitable relief against Registry errors (Paras 14, 19).

**Case Title:** Coldsmiths Retail Services Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks  

**Order Date:** 17 February 2026  

**Case Number:** W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2025, CM 162/2025 & CM 164/2025  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:1332  

**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi  

**Name of Judge:** Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela  

**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice 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  

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

=====