Case Title: Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors.: Date of Order: July 01, 2025: Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2024: Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi: Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
The petitioner sought directions to renew its registered trademark ‘JAGAT(DEVICE)’ bearing no.01253200 in class 30, arguing that the Registrar of Trademarks failed to issue the mandatory Form O-3 notice required under the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, to inform them of the approaching expiry of the registration. The respondents contended that the notice had indeed been issued and served on 14 October 2023 but could not produce any proof of service.
The dispute centered on whether the non-receipt of Form O-3 notice, which is mandatory under law, justified restoration and renewal of the trademark despite the petitioner’s failure to renew it on time.
In discussing the matter, the Court referred to Epsilon Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (72) PTC 480 (Del), which held that the proprietor should not be penalized for the lapse of the Registry when it fails to follow statutory procedure.
The Court also cited CIPLA Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., 2013 (56) PTC 217 (Bom) (DB); Union of India and Ors. v. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 (54) PTC 165 (Del) (DB); and Gopal Ji Gupta v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7670, reaffirming that issuing Form O-3 is mandatory before any adverse action is taken. Additionally, the Court noted its own similar order in M/S Zine Davidoff S.A v Union Of India And Anr, W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2021, decided on 22 April 2025.
The Court concluded that since no proof of service of the statutory notice was produced and applying the principles of natural justice, the petitioner could not be faulted. The writ petition was accordingly allowed with directions to issue the certificate of renewal for the trademark, restore it on the register, and update the records, subject to payment of requisite fees and compliance with formalities.
