Facts
The appellant, Mohanlal U. Jain, trading as M/s Master Marketing, claimed rights over the trademark “RALLISON” for goods falling under Class 21 and Class 7, relating to household appliances and kitchenware. The appellant asserted continuous use of the mark since 6 April 2002 in Class 21 and 3 April 2002 in Class 7. To secure statutory protection, two separate applications were filed before the Trade Marks Registry under Application Nos. 2835978 and 2896138, each supported by user claims from 2002.
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
Both applications were published in the Trade Marks Journal on 22 May 2017 and 5 June 2017, giving public notice of advertisement. Subsequently, the first respondent, LKB Engineering Pvt. Ltd., filed trademark oppositions on 21 September 2017 and 5 October 2017.
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
The appellant contended that a copy of the oppositions was never served upon them as required under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates that the opponent must serve the applicant with a copy of the notice of opposition before the Registry can proceed further. Because a copy of the opposition was never received, the appellant could not file a counter-statement. This ultimately led to the Trade Marks Registry passing orders dated 15 March 2018 and 20 March 2018 declaring both trademark applications abandoned due to non-filing of a counter.
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
The appellant filed the present appeals under Section 91 read with Section 92 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the abandonment orders and seeking restoration of the trademark applications.
Procedural History
After the abandonment orders, the appellant approached the High Court, arguing that they were denied the opportunity to file a counter-statement because the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 21(2) was never complied with. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the agent on record, M/s H.P. Associates, had communicated an email ID to the Registry — tmharshad@gmail.com — but no service of the opposition was actually undertaken in a manner recognised by law.
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
The first respondent argued that an email dated 8 November 2017 was sent by the Trade Marks Registry to the appellant’s agent serving the opposition notices, and therefore the appellant could not claim ignorance. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, stressing that litigants must approach courts with clean hands and cannot take advantage of procedural lapses.
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
However, the Trade Marks Registry did not produce independent proof that the opposition was served on the appellant in conformity with Section 21(2).
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
Core Dispute
The core legal issue before the Court was whether the trademark applications were rightly abandoned by the Trade Marks Registry despite there being no evidence of service of the notice of opposition on the applicant. The question therefore centred around whether the statutory mandate of service of opposition notice under Section 21(2) was complied with before abandoning the trademark applications.
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
Justice N. Senthilkumar examined the evidence and submissions with respect to the statutory scheme governing opposition proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 21(2) clearly mandates that after an opposition is filed, a copy of the notice of opposition must be served on the applicant, and only then does the applicant’s time to file a counter-statement begin. If the counter is not filed within the prescribed period, only then can the application be treated as abandoned.
The Court noted that the core requirement in the present case was not whether the opposition had been filed, but whether it had been properly served upon the applicant. The file did not contain any independent acknowledgement or proof by the Registry to demonstrate that service was actually effected on the appellant or on the authorised agent. Though the first respondent referred to an email, the Registry did not discharge its responsibility to produce proof of legally valid service.
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
The Court held that in the absence of proof of service, the right to file a counter-statement cannot be defeated. The appellant was therefore deprived of the legal right to defend the opposition and argue for trademark registration.
The Court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s observations in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasise that litigants must not mislead the judicial process. But the Court clarified that this principle applies when a party conceals facts or manipulates the judicial process. In the present case, there was no concealment or misrepresentation by the appellant. The dispute arose because the Registry failed to provide proof of compliance with Section 21(2). Therefore, the Supreme Court decision did not apply adversely to the appellant.
Mohanlal U.Jain Vs Lkb Engineer…
Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed that service of opposition notice is a mandatory safeguard and abandonment of marks without fulfilling this safeguard would violate natural justice, since the applicant would be deprived of the statutory right to file a counter-statement.
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the abandonment orders dated 15 March 2018 and 20 March 2018 passed by the Trade Marks Registry in relation to Trademark Application Nos. 2835978 and 2896138. The Court directed that a fresh opportunity must be granted to the appellant by properly serving copies of the oppositions and thereafter passing orders within 12 weeks from receipt of the Court’s order. No costs were imposed.
Mohanlal U. Jain Vs. LKB Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Order Date: 28 October 2025
Case Number: (T) CMA (TM) Nos. 196 of 2023 and 2 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:— (as reflected on the order)
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Hon’ble Judge: Justice N. Senthilkumar
Trademark Abandonment and Natural Justice: A Study of Service Requirements under Section 21(2)
When Failure of Service Invalidates Abandonment: Madras High Court’s Interpretation in Mohanlal U. Jain Case
Restoration of Trademark Rights through Procedural Safeguards: Lessons from 2025 High Court Judgment
The Right to Defend Opposition Proceedings: A Legal Examination of Section 21 in Practice
Protecting Applicants from Procedural Irregularity: A Judicial Review of Abandonment Orders in Trademark Law
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
