Bombay High Court Upholds Validity of Trademark Renewal Notice Dispatch in Non-Renewal Removal Racket Dispute
[Case Title] : Raju Patel Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
Date of Judgment: 21.07.2026
Case No.: Writ Petition No.4868 of 2025
Neutral Citation : Not Available
[Court Name] : In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ. & Hon'ble Mr. Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner No.1 applied for and obtained registration of the trade mark SUNDAY with claimed user from 01.02.2008. The registration certificate issued on 05.05.2011 was valid until 29.05.2019. On 01.03.2019, the Registrar sent a notice for renewal in Form RG-3 dated 26.02.2019 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to Petitioner No.1's registered agent. On 11.11.2024, Petitioner No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application seeking permission to renew the mark, alleging non-receipt of the RG-3 notice. Petitioner No.1 assigned the mark to Petitioner No.2 on 29.11.2024. Petitioner No.2 filed RTI applications and appeals to obtain dispatch details and subsequently filed a Writ Petition before the High Court apprehending removal of the mark due to non-filing of renewal within the prescribed period.
Dispute before Court
The primary dispute was whether the Registrar of Trade Marks complied with the mandatory requirement under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 regarding the issuance of the RG-3 renewal notice. A further dispute was whether the non-availability of online postal tracking information after a lapse of over six years disproves actual service or dislodges the presumption of service under Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Reasoning of Judge
The Court observed that under Rule 18 and Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 read with Section 25(3) of the Act, proving service requires establishing proper address and posting, rather than proving actual receipt or acknowledgment. The Court noted that the Registrar produced contemporaneous records from its Outward dispatch register showing that on 01.03.2019, five renewal notices (including the subject mark) were sent by Speed Post to the registered agent, and two of those marks were in fact renewed by the same agent. The Court held that statutory presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 upon proper address and dispatch. The non-availability of postal tracking details after six years on the India Post website does not dislodge the official outward register or disrepute the statutory presumption, especially when the registered agent was neither made a party nor filed an affidavit denying receipt. The Court further observed that the assignee (Petitioner No.2) cannot acquire better rights than the assignor, who slept over its rights for over five years.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule, holding that the Respondent had fully discharged its statutory obligations under Section 25(3) of the Act read with Rule 58 of the Rules. No order was made as to costs.
One Important legal principle held in the case
Under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 18 and Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the Registrar is only required to establish proper addressing and dispatch of the RG-3 renewal notice to the address for service, creating a rebuttable presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which cannot be dislodged merely by the absence of online postal tracking records after a prolonged delay.
[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]
Legal Protection of Pharmaceutical Packaging and Parallel Criminal Prosecution in Counterfeit Drug Cases
Introduction:
The administration and maintenance of registered intellectual property rights impose explicit duties on both regulatory authorities and mark proprietors. Under trademark jurisprudence, statutory provisions govern the duration, renewal, and eventual removal of registered trademarks. While the law mandates that the Registrar of Trade Marks must notify a proprietor prior to removing a mark for non-renewal, questions frequently arise regarding what constitutes proper legal compliance for serving such statutory notices. In a significant judgment, the High Court analyzed the interplay between statutory renewal notices, postal dispatch proof, the presumption of service, and the evidentiary value of online tracking data after prolonged periods of inaction by mark owners.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The original proprietor, trading as M/s. Anand Ply, applied for the registration of the trademark SUNDAY claiming user from 1st February, 2008. The Registrar of Trade Marks issued a Registration Certificate on 5th May, 2011 under Application No.1823390, with validity extending up to 29th May, 2019. Under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a notice for renewal in Form RG-3 dated 26th February, 2019 was generated and dispatched by the Registry via speed post on 1st March, 2019 to the registered trademark agent on record, M/s. Vishesh & Associates.
No renewal application or prescribed fee was submitted prior to the expiration date of 29th May, 2019, or within the extended six-month period provided under the statutory proviso. On 11th November, 2024—more than five years after the expiration—the original proprietor filed an Interlocutory Application before the Registrar, contending that the Form RG-3 notice was never served and seeking permission to pay renewal fees to restore the mark. Shortly thereafter, on 29th November, 2024, the original proprietor executed an Assignment Deed transferring the trademark to Matra Mobili Private Limited. Requisite assignment documents were submitted to the Registry on 21st March, 2025.
Upon checking the status page on the Registry's website, the assignee noticed an alert stating that the mark was likely to be removed due to non-filing of a renewal request within the prescribed time limit. To build its case, the assignee filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 3rd January, 2025 through its agent, M/s. Obhan & Associates. On 20th February, 2025, the Central Public Information Officer provided dispatch particulars, including correspondence numbers, dispatch entries, and speed post tracking number EM692402790IN dated 1st March, 2019. An appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act was subsequently dismissed by the appellate authority on 17th March, 2025, confirming the dispatch details. When the assignee attempted to track the consignment on the India Post portal, the portal returned a result stating that consignment details were not found. Apprehending imminent removal of the mark, both the assignor and assignee approached the High Court under Writ Petition No.4868 of 2025.
Dispute Before the Court
The central legal issue requiring adjudication was whether the Registrar of Trade Marks satisfied the mandatory statutory obligation under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 regarding the issuance and service of the RG-3 renewal notice.
The petitioners contended that compliance with Section 25(3) is mandatory and that a mark cannot be removed without positive proof of actual receipt of the notice. They argued that mere production of a dispatch number is insufficient and highlighted that the speed post tracking number displayed an error message on the postal portal. Relying on earlier precedents, the petitioners argued that without concrete proof of service, the mark could not be removed and restoration ought to be permitted.
Conversely, the Registrar of Trade Marks submitted that the statutory notice was properly issued and dispatched to the address for service of the registered agent in the ordinary course of business. The Registrar produced extracts of the Outward dispatch register showing that on 1st March, 2019, five renewal notices were dispatched to the same agent, two of which were successfully renewed by the same agent pursuant to those notices. The Registrar contended that once proper dispatch to the address for service by government post is established, a presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. It was argued that the non-availability of online tracking data after six years cannot negate actual dispatch or override years of unexplained delay by the mark owner.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court examined the statutory framework governing trademark renewals, specifically Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alongside Rules 18 and 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. It observed that while Section 25(3) obliges the Registrar to notify the registered proprietor before removing a mark, it also expects proprietors to maintain due diligence over their intellectual property registrations. The statutory scheme is designed to facilitate renewal, not to preserve registrations indefinitely when proprietors neglect their maintenance responsibilities.
Analyzing Rule 58 and Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the Court highlighted that service of documents by the Registrar is complete upon leaving them at or sending them by post to the address for service. Under Rule 18(2), communications sent by post are deemed served at the time they would be delivered in the ordinary course. Crucially, Rule 18(3) explicitly clarifies that to prove service, it is sufficient to prove that the letter was properly addressed and put into the post. The Court held that the rules require proof of proper dispatch to the registered address for service rather than signed proof of delivery or physical acknowledgment from the addressee.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the Registrar successfully established proper dispatch. The contemporaneous Outward dispatch register documented the entry for 1st March, 2019, reflecting the dispatch of five RG-3 notices to the registered agent, M/s. Vishesh & Associates. The fact that the same agent acted upon two of those five notices to secure renewals for other marks strongly corroborated that dispatches occurred in the ordinary course of business.
The Court held that once proper addressing and posting via Government Speed Post are demonstrated, the statutory presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 comes into operation. This presumption dictates that service is deemed effective unless the contrary is proved by cogent evidence. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the unavailability of online tracking details on the India Post portal dislodged this presumption. The verification attempt occurred in 2025—six years after the 2019 dispatch. Neither postal departments nor administrative bodies are required to maintain online tracking entries indefinitely.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the registered agent who allegedly failed to receive the notice was not made a party to the petition, nor was any affidavit filed by the agent denying receipt. The Court characterized the petitioners' reliance on RTI queries as an attempt at reverse engineering to capitalize on the natural expiration of online tracking records. The original proprietor remained silent for over five years after the registration expired on 29th May, 2019, initiating steps only in November 2024 ahead of assigning the expired mark. The Court affirmed that an assignee cannot claim superior rights to those held by the assignor. Distinguishing past precedents such as Ipca Laboratories Limited vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Cipla Ltd. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1270, and Cipla Ltd vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) (IPD) No. 23 of 2025, the Court noted that those cases involved instances where no dispatch steps were taken or where public notices were incorrectly substituted for individual notices. In contrast, concrete proof of individual dispatch was fully established here. The Court also referred to Guruji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online Del 7624 (DB), International Business Machines Corporation vs. Tivoli Gardens, 2026 SCC Online Del 828, and M/s. Madan and Co. vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264, reinforcing that proof of proper dispatch shifts the burden to the addressee to rebut service.
Final Decision of the Court
The High Court held that the Registrar of Trade Marks successfully fulfilled all statutory requirements under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule. The Court made no order as to costs.
Point of Law Settled
This judgment establishes that under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rules 18 and 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the Registrar is required to prove proper addressing and dispatch of the RG-3 renewal notice to the address for service, rather than proving actual delivery or physical acknowledgment. Once proper dispatch by post is evidenced through official outward registers, a statutory presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. This presumption cannot be dislodged merely by pointing to the non-availability of online postal tracking records after a significant lapse of time. Furthermore, assignees of expired marks cannot bypass statutory renewal deadlines when their assignors have failed to exercise due diligence.
Title of the Case: Raju Patel and Another vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
Date of Judgment: 21.07.2026
Case Number: Writ Petition No.4868 of 2025
Neutral Citation: Not Available
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ. & Hon'ble Mr. Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .
Headnote of the Judgment:
Raju Patel and Another vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Writ Petition No.4868 of 2025, Judgment Dated 21.07.2026. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the non-renewal and potential removal of the trademark SUNDAY following its expiry on 29.05.2019, alleging non-service of the mandatory RG-3 renewal notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court held that the Registrar proved proper dispatch of the notice to the address for service via official outward records, triggering the presumption of service under Rule 18 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court held that non-availability of online tracking details after six years does not dislodge this presumption. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Bombay High Court, Trademark Renewal Law, Section 25 Trade Marks Act, Rule 58 Trade Marks Rules, Rule 18 Trade Marks Rules, RG-3 Notice Service, Presumption of Service, Section 27 General Clauses Act, Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai, Non Renewal Trademark Removal, Trademark Assignment Expired Mark, Intellectual Property Law India, Trademark Agent Service, Speed Post Dispatch Proof, Postal Tracking Record Expiry, Outward Dispatch Register Evidence, Trademark Restoration Petition, Trade Mark Removal Alert, Due Diligence Trademark Owner, RTI Trade Mark Registry, Legal Presumption Post Service, IP Litigation India, Trademark Jurisprudence, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
1. Bombay High Court Rules on Validity of Trademark RG-3 Renewal Notice Dispatch
2. Is Postal Tracking Proof Mandatory to Prove Service of Trademark Renewal Notice?
3. Understanding Section 25(3) and Presumption of Service Under Trade Marks Act
4. Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Seeking Restoration of Expired Trademark SUNDAY
5. Can an Assignee Renew a Trademark After Years of Inaction by the Assignor?
6. Proof of Dispatch vs Proof of Delivery Under Rule 18 of Trade Marks Rules 2017
7. Interplay Between Trade Marks Act 1999 and Section 27 General Clauses Act 1897
8. High Court Clarifies Legal Impact of Missing Postal Tracking Details in IP Matters
9. Duties of Trademark Proprietors and Registrars in Trademark Renewal Proceedings
10. Bombay High Court Upholds Registry Actions on Removal of Non-Renewed Trademarks
