Fact of the Case:
Dr. Smita Naram filed an opposition against the trademark application for the mark "AYURSHAKTI" filed by respondent no.3 in 1996. The opposition was dismissed by the Trademark Registry under Rule 56(4) of the Trademark Rules, 2002 for alleged non-prosecution, following claims that the appellant failed to attend scheduled hearings. The appellant, however, contended that she never received the hearing notices and challenged the dismissal.
Procedural Background in Brief:
The appellant filed the opposition on 8th October 2003 and submitted her evidence by affidavit on 5th July 2004. After a gap, hearing notices were issued by the Registry in 2015 and 2016. The appellant filed RTI applications seeking dispatch details of the counter-statement and hearing notices. While the Registry claimed notices were dispatched, the appellant submitted RTI responses from the Post Office indicating non-receipt. Despite the appellant seeking adjournments, the opposition was dismissed by the Registry on 5th April 2016 for non-appearance.
Reasoning of Court:
The Court observed that the appellant had actively pursued the opposition since 2003, making it unlikely that she would abandon the matter at the hearing stage. Further, the Court noted discrepancies based on the appellant’s RTI responses, suggesting that hearing notices may not have been received. Given that the trademark application was still pending due to other oppositions, the Court held that it would be just and fair to restore the appellant’s opposition.
Decision:
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 5th April 2016 and restored the appellant’s opposition. The Trademark Registry was directed to issue a fresh hearing notice and decide the opposition on merits.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Smita Naram Vs Registrar of Trademarks and Ors
Date of Order: 5th March 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 106/2022
Neutral Citation: Not provided
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
