Jyothy Labs Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.:18.05.2026:C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 29/2026:Hon'ble Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks that had dismissed Jyothy Labs Limited’s opposition to a trademark application on the ground that the company failed to file evidence within the prescribed period. The appellant contended that the counter-statement filed by the applicant was never served upon it, depriving it of the opportunity to submit evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. During the proceedings, the Registrar’s counsel acknowledged that due to a technical glitch, the counter-statement had in fact not been served on the appellant.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that proper service of the counter-statement is a mandatory requirement and that the failure to comply with this requirement denied the appellant a fair opportunity to pursue its opposition. Finding merit in the appellant’s grievance, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 6 February 2025 and remanded the matter to the Registrar of Trade Marks with directions to complete service of the counter-statement, provide the appellant an opportunity to file evidence, and thereafter continue the opposition proceedings. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception,interpretation and presentation of facts and law.]
====
Technical Glitch Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition
Introduction: In trademark opposition proceedings, procedural fairness is not merely a technical formality it is the very foundation on which the entire system of checks and balances rests. When a party files an opposition to the registration of a trademark, it does so to protect its existing rights from being diluted or infringed upon by a new registration. The opposition process under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is a carefully designed mechanism that gives both the applicant and the opponent a fair opportunity to present their respective cases before the Registrar of Trade Marks. This mechanism depends critically on proper service of documents between the parties, because every subsequent step in the opposition including the filing of evidence is triggered by the receipt of the previous document.
When this chain of communication breaks down due to a technical failure on the part of the Registry itself, and the opposition is dismissed merely because the opponent did not file evidence within the prescribed time, a grave injustice results. The opponent is penalised not for its own default but for a failure that was entirely the Registry's doing. The Delhi High Court's order dated 18th May 2026 in Jyothy Labs Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Others directly confronts this situation and reaffirms a principle that is fundamental to any fair adjudicatory process: no party can be condemned for failing to do something it was never given the opportunity or notice to do.
This case, though brief in its order, carries significant lessons for trademark practitioners, trademark applicants, and the Trade Marks Registry itself about the importance of proper service, the consequences of procedural lapses by administrative bodies, and the role of the High Court in correcting such errors on appeal.
Factual and Procedural Background:
Jyothy Labs Limited, the Appellant, is a well-known Indian consumer goods company with an established presence in personal care, fabric care, and household products. The company filed an opposition bearing Opposition No. 1279339 against an application for registration of the trademark "JIVA AYURVEDA" filed under Application No. 4903005 in Class 42. Class 42 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 relates broadly to scientific and technological services and wellness-related services, which is consistent with the Ayurveda services that the applied mark appeared to cover.
Under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the trademark opposition process follows a structured sequence. Once an opposition notice is filed by the opponent, the trademark applicant is required to file a counter-statement. Under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, once the counter-statement is filed by the applicant and served upon the opponent, the opponent has a period of two months to file its evidence in support of its opposition. This evidence stage is critical because it is through this evidence that the opponent substantiates the grounds of its opposition and places on record the factual basis for why the applied trademark should not be registered.
In the present case, the Registrar of Trade Marks passed an order dated 6th February 2025, dismissing the opposition filed by Jyothy Labs. The basis for this dismissal was that Jyothy Labs had not filed its evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 within the prescribed period of two months from the alleged date of service of the counter-statement. As a consequence of this dismissal, the Registrar allowed the application for registration of the mark "JIVA AYURVEDA" under Application No. 4903005 in Class 42 to proceed for registration.
Jyothy Labs challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The appeal was registered as C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 29/2026 and was accompanied by three interlocutory applications bearing numbers I.A. 13755/2026, I.A. 13756/2026, and I.A. 13757/2026.
The core grievance of Jyothy Labs was straightforward: it never received the counter-statement filed by the trademark applicant. Since the counter-statement was never served upon it, Jyothy Labs could not have known that the two-month clock for filing evidence had started running. It was therefore impossible for it to have filed evidence within a period the commencement of which it had no notice of. There was an additional and telling inconsistency in the Registry's own records. The Hearing Notice dated 11th September 2025 issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks recorded the date of service of the counter-statement upon the appellant as 11th June 2024. However, the impugned order dated 6th February 2025 recorded the date of service of the counter-statement as 23rd April 2024. These two dates are different, and this discrepancy within the Registry's own documents powerfully corroborated the appellant's claim that something had clearly gone wrong with the service process.
The Dispute:
The dispute before the Court was narrow but significant. The question was whether the Registrar of Trade Marks was justified in dismissing Jyothy Labs' opposition under Opposition No. 1279339 solely on the ground that evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 had not been filed within two months, when in fact the counter-statement the very document whose service triggers the running of that two-month period had never been properly served upon the appellant.
Jyothy Labs' position was that it was a victim of the Registry's own failure. It had filed its opposition diligently and was waiting for the next step in the proceedings. It was never informed that a counter-statement had been filed, and it was therefore never in a position to respond by filing evidence. To penalise it for this non-compliance was to visit upon it the consequences of a failure that was not of its making.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Upon hearing the parties, the Court first noted the specific claim of the Appellant that the counter-statement had never been served upon it, which was the direct cause of its failure to file evidence within the prescribed period under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Court also took note of the significant internal inconsistency in the Registry's own records the discrepancy between the date of alleged service mentioned in the Hearing Notice dated 11th September 2025, which stated 11th June 2024, and the date recorded in the impugned order of 6th February 2025, which stated 23rd April 2024. This inconsistency by itself raised serious doubt about whether any effective service had taken place at all.
Most importantly, when the Court issued notice and the matter was heard, the counsel representing the Registrar of Trade Marks made a candid and critical statement on instructions, after scrutinising the official records of the Registry. He stated that upon examination, it was indeed found that the counter-statement had in fact not been served upon the appellant. The reason attributed was a technical glitch that occurred at the time of service. The Registry thus effectively admitted that the service had failed and that the failure was on its part, not the appellant's.
The Court's analysis, though concise, was legally sound and principled. It observed that the mandate under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 which requires the counter-statement to be served upon the opponent before the evidence period commences had not been properly complied with by the Registrar. This non-compliance by the Registry directly deprived the appellant of the opportunity to file its evidence in support of its opposition notice. Essentially, a party cannot be expected to comply with a time-bound procedural obligation when the very trigger for that obligation the receipt of a document never reached it. Procedural deadlines presuppose proper notice; without notice, there can be no default.
No external judicial precedents were cited or discussed in this brief order, which is not unusual for an interlocutory or remand order where the facts speak clearly for themselves and the legal principle is well-established. The principle that a party must be given due notice before a proceeding can be conducted against it is foundational to natural justice and has been affirmed in countless contexts by Indian courts. The right to be heard audi alteram partem is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of fair adjudication, and it cannot be bypassed by a procedural glitch in the Registry's own system.
The Court found it entirely appropriate in these circumstances to quash the impugned order dated 6th February 2025 and remand the matter back to the Registrar of Trade Marks. The directions given were specific and practical. The Registrar was directed to complete service of the counter-statement upon the appellant within three weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter, the appellant was to be given a proper opportunity to file its evidence in accordance with Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Registrar was also directed to continue the proceedings in Opposition No. 1279339 after this was done.
Final Decision of the Court:
The appeal filed by Jyothy Labs Limited under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 was disposed of by quashing the order dated 6th February 2025 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The matter was remanded to the Registrar with a direction to serve the counter-statement upon the appellant within three weeks, after which the appellant was to be given a full and proper opportunity to file its evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
Point of Law Settled:
This order reaffirms and applies the elementary but vital principle that a statutory time period for filing evidence in trademark opposition proceedings under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 can only commence from the date of actual and proper service of the counter-statement upon the opponent. Where the counter-statement has never been served upon the opponent due to a technical failure in the Registry's own system, the opposition cannot be dismissed for non-filing of evidence within that period. The consequences of a procedural failure by the Registry cannot be visited upon the opposing party. When it is admitted by the Registry itself that there was a glitch in service, the proper remedy is to quash the order dismissing the opposition and remand the matter with a direction for fresh and proper service followed by a genuine opportunity to file evidence.
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 SEO Titles**
Delhi High Court Restores Jyothy Labs' Trademark Opposition After Registry's Technical Glitch Causes Service Failure
Technical Failure in Trade Marks Registry Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition: Delhi HC in Jyothy Labs Case
Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules 2017 Evidence Period Starts Only on Actual Service of Counter-Statement: Delhi High Court
JIVA AYURVEDA Trademark: Delhi HC Sets Aside Registrar's Order Dismissing Jyothy Labs Opposition Due to Non-Service
Natural Justice in Trademark Opposition Proceedings: How Registry's Glitch Cost Jyothy Labs Its Evidence Opportunity
Trademark Opposition Cannot Be Dismissed for Non-Filing of Evidence When Counter-Statement Was Never Served
Section 91 Trade Marks Act Appeal: Delhi High Court Quashes Registrar's Order Dismissing Opposition for Non-Service
---
**SEO Tags**
Jyothy Labs trademark case, JIVA AYURVEDA trademark, Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 91, Trade Marks Rules 2017 Rule 45, trademark opposition evidence, counter-statement service failure, Registrar of Trade Marks technical glitch, Delhi High Court trademark appeal, trademark opposition dismissal, natural justice trademark proceedings, audi alteram partem trademark, trademark opposition procedure India, Class 42 trademark services, trademark evidence period, Trade Marks Rules 2017 Rule 156, IPD TM Delhi High Court, trademark registry service failure, opponent rights trademark proceedings, trademark procedural fairness India, intellectual property Delhi High Court 2026, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
---
**Head Note**
Jyothy Labs Limited filed an opposition to the registration of the trademark "JIVA AYURVEDA" under Application No. 4903005 in Class 42. The Registrar of Trade Marks dismissed the opposition vide order dated 6th February 2025 on the ground that Jyothy Labs had not filed evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 within two months of the alleged service of the counter-statement. On appeal before the Delhi High Court, the Registry's own counsel admitted upon scrutiny of records that the counter-statement had in fact never been served upon the appellant due to a technical glitch. The Court held that the mandate under Rule 45 of serving the counter-statement upon the opponent had not been complied with, thereby depriving the appellant of its right to file evidence. The impugned order was quashed, the matter was remanded to the Registrar with a direction to serve the counter-statement within three weeks, and the appellant was to be given a proper opportunity to file evidence thereafter.
No comments:
Post a Comment