Case Title: Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta Vs Registrar of Trademarks Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2023 Date of Order: 14 May 2025 Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:3697
Facts:
Romil Gupta, the appellant, is engaged in manufacturing and trading self-tapping metal screws and claims to have used the trademark in question since 2013. The appellant initially filed a trademark application on 30 October 2018 with a user claim from 27 February 2013. A clerical error occurred, whereby the application was made for an incorrect mark ("applied mark") instead of the intended "subject mark." The appellant filed an application on 13 December 2018 seeking correction of this clerical mistake to reflect the actual "subject mark."
Procedural Details:
- The respondent, the Registrar of Trademarks, initiated proceedings based on a complaint filed by respondent no.2, who also filed a rectification petition and a civil suit opposing the registration.
- The Registrar issued a show cause notice on 31 October 2022 under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and scheduled a hearing on 17 November 2022.
- The Registrar passed an order on 15 December 2022 cancelling the registration of the trademark in favor of the appellant, citing procedural lapses and alleged substantial alterations in the mark and overlooking the appellant's correction request.
- The appellant filed this appeal challenging the cancellation.
Issue:
Whether the Registrar of Trademarks properly followed the procedures under the Trade Marks Act, and whether the cancellation of the trademark based on alleged "substantial alteration" was justified, especially considering the clerical error and the processes followed.
Court’s Decision:
The Court set aside the impugned order of cancellation, holding that:
- The Registrar failed to observe the mandatory procedural safeguards, including adequate notice.
- The grounds for cancellation based on "substantial alteration" were not substantiated, especially since the alteration was minimal (inverting the letters "SD") and the appellant had sought correction for a clerical error.
- The Registrar’s order was unsustainable due to violations of statutory requirements, and the appeal was allowed.
Conclusion:
The order cancelling the registration was set aside, and the registration in favor of Romil Gupta was reinstated. The Court clarified that pending rectification proceedings or civil suits do not automatically impact the validity of proceedings under Section 57(4).
