Fact of the Case:
The case involves an appeal by Raj Vardhan Patodia (HUF) against the Registrar of Trade Marks and another respondent. The appellant opposed trade mark application no. 3353986, but the opposition was deemed abandoned by the Registrar under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for allegedly not filing evidence within two months of receiving the counter statement. The appellant claimed it had sent the evidence affidavit on time, supported by courier receipts, while the respondents argued non-delivery.
Procedural Background in Brief:
The appellant filed opposition no. 1024552 against trade mark application no. 3353986. The Registrar served the counter statement on December 15, 2021, and later, on September 12, 2023, deemed the opposition abandoned for non-submission of evidence, despite a hearing on September 5, 2023. The appellant appealed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging this order, asserting the evidence was dispatched within the statutory period.
Provisions of law Referred in Case:
The court relied on statutory provisions: Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which mandates filing evidence within two months of receiving the counter statement, and Rule 14, which deems a document served if properly addressed and posted, requiring only proof of dispatch, not delivery.
Reasoning of Court:
The court found the Registrar’s order flawed, as it misinterpreted the appellant’s stance as denying service of the counter statement, whereas the appellant admitted receipt and claimed timely dispatch of evidence on February 1, 2022, within the two-month limit. Supported by a notarized affidavit, cover letter, and courier receipts, the court held that Rule 14 only requires proof of posting, not receipt, and the appellant met this standard. Principles of natural justice further supported considering the opposition on merits, as the evidence was sent during the COVID era, possibly lost in transit.
Decision:
The court set aside the Registrar’s order of September 12, 2023, restored the opposition, directed the appellant to refile the evidence within one week, allowed the respondent to file its evidence, and cancelled the trade mark registration granted to respondent no. 2. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Raj Vardhan Patodia Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks
Date of Order: March 18, 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 3/2024
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon’ble Judge: Justice Amit Bansal
