Where a party contests non-receipt of hearing notices in a Trademark Opposition proceeding, he should be granted a fresh hearing.
Introduction:
The case concerns an appeal under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, challenging the order passed by the Trademark Registry on April 5, 2016. The opposition filed by Dr. Smita Naram against the registration of the trademark "AYURSHAKTI" was dismissed under Rule 56(4) of the Trademark Rules, 2002, due to non-prosecution. The central issue was whether the appellant had received the hearing notices from the Trademark Registry, as she claimed non-receipt and contested the dismissal of her opposition.
Detailed Factual Background:
Dr. Smita Naram became aware of the trademark application for "AYURSHAKTI" (No. 701490) filed by respondent no. 3 when it was advertised in the Trademarks Journal on June 29, 2003. She opposed the application by filing Opposition No. DEL 129200 on October 8, 2003.
On December 17, 2003, she received a letter from the Trademark Registry confirming that her notice of opposition had been served to the applicant. Later, on April 13, 2004, the applicant filed a counter-statement, a copy of which was forwarded to the appellant’s advocate. The appellant filed her evidence in support of opposition via an affidavit dated June 26, 2004, which was submitted on July 5, 2004.
The Trademark Registry scheduled the first hearing on November 5, 2015, via a notice dated October 13, 2015. During the hearing, the appellant was asked to provide proof that she received the counter-statement on May 5, 2004, to establish the timeliness of her evidence. Following this, she filed an RTI application on December 31, 2015, requesting dispatch details. The Registry responded on February 22, 2016, stating that the counter-statement was dispatched on April 13, 2004, but no dispatch records could be traced.
During the pendency of this inquiry, the Trademark Registry issued multiple hearing notices on November 26, 2015, and January 9, 2016, for hearings scheduled on December 22, 2015, and February 2, 2016. The appellant’s advocates sought adjournments via Form TM-56 on December 18, 2015, and February 8, 2016. However, despite these requests, the appellant received the impugned order dated April 5, 2016, stating that her opposition was dismissed due to non-appearance at hearings on February 9, 2016, and April 5, 2016.
Detailed Procedural Background:
The appellant contended that she did not receive the hearing notice for April 5, 2016, and relied on RTI responses from the Post Office. These RTI replies, marked as Exhibits P and Q, supported her claim of non-receipt. She further argued that the trademark application remained pending due to oppositions filed by other parties.
The respondents, represented by Ms. Nidhi Raman, argued that the dismissal was justified as the appellant failed to respond to multiple hearing notices. They relied on the dispatch register, which purportedly showed that hearing notices were sent.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Whether the appellant received the hearing notices issued by the Trademark Registry?
Detailed Submission of Parties:
The appellant argued that she was actively pursuing the opposition and had not received hearing notices. She relied on RTI responses suggesting that no records of dispatch could be found. She contended that she had filed requests for adjournment, which were not considered.
The respondents maintained that the dismissal was valid as the Trademark Registry had sent the hearing notices. They referred to the dispatch register, claiming it contained evidence of proper service.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
Justice Amit Bansal noted that while the dispatch register indicated that hearing notices were sent, the appellant provided RTI responses showing that she had not received them. Given that the appellant had been pursuing the matter since 2003, the court found it unlikely that she would have deliberately ignored the hearing.
The court observed that procedural fairness required an opportunity for the appellant to present her case, especially since the impugned trademark was still under opposition from other parties. The judge emphasized that denying a hearing in such circumstances would be unjust.
Final Decision:
The court set aside the impugned order dated April 5, 2016, and restored the appellant’s opposition (DEL 129200). The Trademark Registry was directed to issue a fresh hearing notice and decide the opposition on merits.
Law Settled in this Case:
The case reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in trademark opposition proceedings. It establishes that where a party contests non-receipt of hearing notices with documentary evidence, the benefit of doubt should be given in favor of granting a fresh hearing.
Case Title: Dr. Smita Naram vs. Registrar of Trademarks & Ors.
Date of Order: March 5, 2025
Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 106/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1616
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice 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
