The case in question involves Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar, representing his company M/s. Pencia Biotech, who filed a writ petition (W.P.(IPD) No. 3 of 2025) against the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The proceedings took place in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, presided over by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
Summary of Proceedings:
1. Background:
- The petitioner, Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar, applied for the trademark "LABAPEN" (Application No. 6180911) in class 5 on November 9, 2023.
- Following this, an examination report was received on December 4, 2023, and responded to on December 19, 2023. The application was subsequently accepted and published in the trademark journal on February 19, 2024.
1. Notice of Opposition:
- The petitioner was unaware that a notice of opposition (No. 1323965) was lodged against his application until he received the order that deemed his application abandoned on December 26, 2024.
- This notice of opposition was reportedly dispatched via email to the counsel for the petitioner on June 24, 2024. However, there was no evidence to confirm that the petitioner or his counsel received this email.
1. Legal Arguments:
- The petitioner argued that he was deprived of the right to respond to the notice of opposition due to not receiving it, thus leading to a violation of natural justice principles.
- The Registrar of Trademarks contended that the email was sent to the registered email address. Despite this, the counsel for the petitioner emphasized that there was no proof of receipt.
1. Reference to Precedent:
- The judge referred to a similar case (Ramya S. Moorthy v. Registrar of Trademarks), wherein it was ruled that the statutory time limit to file a counter statement should be calculated from the date of receipt of the notice of opposition, not merely from the dispatch of the email. This precedent favored the petitioner’s situation.
1. Court's Decision:
- The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the previous order that declared the application abandoned. The trademark application and the notice of opposition were restored for reconsideration.
- The petitioner was granted a month to file the counter statement in response to the notice of opposition.
1. Recommendations for Improvement:
- The judge suggested that a technical solution be implemented to ensure proof of email receipt is available, in order to prevent similar issues in the future.
Conclusion:
The ruling underscored the importance of ensuring that applicants receive due notice regarding oppositions to their trademark applications. It reinforced the principles of natural justice, ensuring that applicants have the opportunity to respond to any oppositions effectively. The decision was aimed at rectifying the oversight in the notification process that led to the initial ruling of abandonment of the trademark application.
Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar Vs. Assistant Registrar of Trademark W.P.(IPD) No. 3 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Decided on April 3, 2025, Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:903.
