Fact of the Case:
Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenging the order dated 12th September 2023 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby their opposition to the trade mark application no. 3353986 was deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Registrar held that the opponent failed to file its evidence affidavit in support of opposition within two months from receipt of the counter statement. The appellant argued that the affidavit was duly sent within time but was misplaced during transit.
Procedural Background (in brief):
The appellant had filed an opposition against the respondent’s trademark application. The Registrar recorded that despite a hearing, the appellant did not justify why it failed to file evidence on time. Consequently, the opposition was treated as abandoned under Rule 45(2). The appellant filed this appeal claiming that the affidavit in support of opposition had indeed been sent on 1st and 2nd February 2022, along with courier receipts, but was lost in transit. The appellant also filed an affidavit before the Registrar explaining these circumstances, but the Registrar still passed the abandonment order.
Provision of law referred in case and context:
The Court relied on Rule 14 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which specifies that service is deemed completed when documents are properly addressed and put into post, and that proving dispatch is sufficient. The Court did not rely on external case law but applied this statutory principle in favor of the appellant.
Reasoning of Court:
The Court noted that under Rule 14(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, it is sufficient to prove that the document was addressed correctly and dispatched. The appellant furnished courier receipts and an affidavit showing that the affidavit in support of opposition was sent on time to both the Trade Marks Registry and the respondent. The Court observed that the loss of the documents in transit was not attributable to the appellant. Further, the Court stressed that principles of natural justice required that the opposition be considered on merits, as the appellant had complied with the procedural requirements. Therefore, the abandonment order was unsustainable.
Decision:
The Court set aside the order dated 12th September 2023 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant's opposition was restored, and the Trade Marks Registry was directed to take the appellant's evidence affidavit on record. The respondent was directed to file its evidence in reply as per rules. The Court also ordered cancellation of the trademark registration granted to the respondent in application no. 3353986.
Case Title: Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) vs Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Date of Order: 18th March 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 3/2024
Neutral Citation: Not specified in the document
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
