Back
Allows Revival of HMP Trademark as Registry Fails to Prove Notice Sent
The has granted relief to trademark owner Punam Chand Kedia, permitting the revival of his “HMP” mark after the could not establish that it had sent the mandatory renewal notice required under . The decision underscores the critical importance of proper record‑keeping by government agencies and clarifies the evidentiary burden on the Registry when a trademark is removed for non‑renewal.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, presiding over a single‑judge bench, allowed the writ petition on after finding that the Registry’s reliance on an internal dispatch log did not amount to “” of actual dispatch or receipt. The court observed that the Registry’s failure to comply with the vitiated the removal of the mark from the register.
Background of the Case
Kedia’s trademark “HMP” was originally registered in and was renewed once, remaining valid until 2015. Upon expiry of that renewal period, the mark became liable for removal under the Trade Marks Act. The proprietor subsequently sought to renew the mark, but the Registry rejected the application on the ground that the prescribed renewal period had already lapsed.
Kedia’s counsel argued that the Registry was obliged under Section 25(3) of the Act read with to issue a notice to the proprietor informing him of the approaching expiry before taking any action to remove the mark. The counsel submitted that Kedia had never received such a notice, and that the Registry had therefore failed to comply with a mandatory procedural safeguard.
The Registry’s Defence and the Court’s Scrutiny
In response, the claimed that a notice dated had been sent to Kedia in compliance with the statutory requirement. To support this assertion, the Registry produced a dispatch log generated from its own internal system. However, the court was not satisfied with this evidence.
Earlier in the proceedings, the High Court had granted the Registry two weeks to produce concrete proof that the notice had been dispatched and actually received by Kedia. When the matter came up for final hearing, the only evidence tendered was the internal dispatch log. The court found that the log did not establish that the notice had left the Registry’s office or that it had reached the proprietor.
Justice Mahajan noted:
“In that view of the matter, in the absence of any in support of the stand taken by the respondent that O‑3 notices were sent, it is difficult for this court to accept the contention of the respondent that the O‑3 notice was duly sent in terms of Section 25(3) of the Act read with Rule 64(1) of the Rules.”
The bench emphasised that the statutory scheme places the squarely on the Registry. A bare internal log, without corroborating dispatch records or proof of receipt, cannot discharge that burden.
Legal Analysis: The Statutory Framework
provides that the Registrar shall, before removing a mark from the register for non‑payment of renewal fees, notify the registered proprietor of the impending expiry. , 2017 prescribes the manner in which such notice must be sent—typically by registered post or by any other means that provides a record of dispatch.
The purpose of this notice is to afford the proprietor a last opportunity to renew the mark before it is struck off. Failure to send the notice, or inability to prove that it was sent, renders the removal procedurally invalid. The ’s ruling reinforces that the Registry cannot rely on self‑generated, unverified internal logs to meet this burden. The decision aligns with a line of precedent holding that government bodies must maintain rigorous when statutory rights are at stake.
Implications for Trademark Owners and Practitioners
For trademark proprietors, the judgment provides a vital safeguard. It confirms that the mere expiration of a renewal period does not automatically justify removal if the Registry cannot show that the required notice was given. Practitioners should advise clients to retain records of any communications with the Registry and to promptly respond to any notices received.
From a procedural standpoint, the ruling highlights the importance of documentary evidence in administrative law. The will now need to review its dispatch procedures and ensure that notices are sent through verifiable channels—such as registered post, speed post, or electronic means that generate acknowledged receipts. Internal logs, without external corroboration, may no longer suffice.
The Court’s Direction
The High Court allowed Kedia’s petition and directed him to file a fresh renewal application within two weeks, accompanied by the prescribed fee. The Registry was ordered to accept and process the application in accordance with the Rules. This effectively restores the “HMP” mark to the register, subject to compliance with the direction.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in serves as a reminder that is not a mere formality. The under Section 25(3) exists to protect proprietors from losing their valuable trademark rights without an opportunity to be heard. By holding the Registry to a strict standard of proof, the court has reinforced the principle that administrative agencies must maintain reliable records of their actions, especially when those actions affect private rights.
Trademark owners and legal practitioners should take note of this ruling and remain vigilant about the renewal process, but also be aware that they have a remedy if the Registry fails to follow the law.
