Failure of the Trade Mark Registry to consider objections is fatal to recordial
Context:
The petitioner has challenged the decisions made by the Trade Mark Registry (Respondent No. 2) regarding two Form TM-24 applications submitted by Respondent No. 1. These applications were for updating the proprietorship details of a trademark.
Objection Letter:
The petitioner had previously issued an objection letter on January 19, 2018, opposing Respondent No. 1's request for changes in ownership under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Registry's Actions:
Despite receiving the objection letter, the Trade Mark Registry (Respondent No. 2) allowed the Form TM-24 applications without considering the objections or passing any order in response to them. Two communications/orders were issued by the Registry on January 25, 2018, and May 18, 2018, confirming the approval of the applications.
Legal Issue Raised:
The petitioner contends that the Trade Mark Registry (Respondent No. 2) failed to adhere to Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act by not considering their objection letter. Additionally, if the Registry considered the petitioner as an interloper (someone who intrudes into a situation where they are not wanted or are considered not to belong), this should have been explicitly stated in a formal order.
Decision:
The court or adjudicating body has decided to set aside the orders/communications issued by the Trade Mark Registry (Respondent No. 2). It directs Respondent No. 2 to reconsider the Form TM-24 applications, giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Registry must then issue a formal, detailed order (a speaking order) in accordance with Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act.
Conclusion:
The case outlines a legal challenge to the trademark registration process, highlighting the failure of the Trade Mark Registry to consider objections raised by the petitioner and the need for proper procedural adherence in such matters.
The Case Discussed:
Case Title: Electonica India Limited Vs Electonica Hitech Machines Pvt. Limited and another
Judgment/Order Date: 15.04.2024
Case No:Commercial Misc Petition 47 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS-6550
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: R.I.Chagla,H.J.
Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Ph No: 9990389539
