Rakesh Kumar Mittal Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks:May 27, 2025:W.P.(C)-IPD 40/2024:2025:DHC:4432:High Court of Delhi :Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Law Settled in the Case:
1. Mandatory Issuance of Form O-3 Notice: The Court reaffirmed that under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, it is mandatory for the Registrar to issue a Form O-3 notice to the registered proprietor of a trademark before its removal from the Register. This notice must be sent at least one month and not more than three months prior to the expiry of the registration.
2. Non-compliance Makes Removal Illegal: If the Form O-3 notice is not issued in accordance with the statutory mandate, any removal of a trademark from the Register is illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction, regardless of whether the renewal application was filed.
3. Judicial Precedent Applied: The Court relied on previous judgments including:
Union of India v. Malhotra Book Depot (2013 SCC OnLine Del 828),
Cipla Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1270),
Promoshirt SM. (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7722),
Ashok Bhutani v. The Registrar of Trade Marks (W.P.(C)-IPD 22/2024), affirming that the issuance of the notice is a condition precedent for valid removal.
4. Restoration and Renewal Directed: Since Form O-3 notice was not issued in this case, the Court ordered the restoration of the trademark MILTON (Application No. 627446, Class 9) and directed the Registrar to process the renewal applications for the periods 2004–2014, 2014–2024, and 2024–2034 upon completion of formalities by the petitioner.
