2013 Supreme(Bom) 1887
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. VAZIFDAR & K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ.
CIPLA Limited
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks & Another
Writ Petition No.1669 of 2012
Decided on: 23-09-2013
For the Petitioner:Abhijeet Desai along with Manish Saurastri, Rahul Dhote, Dr. Rachana Bharadwaj i/by Krishna Saurastri & Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Vinod Joshi i/by Kaushik Sharma, Advocates.
Headnote:Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 25(3) - Validity of removal of trade marks. - In absence of any notice in Form O-3 prior to removal of trade mark, removal of trade marks improper. - Court is in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Delhi High Court single Judge and of the Division Bench. Although that case was under the 1958 Act and the Rules there under the relevant provisions thereof viz. Section 25(3) and Rule 67 are similar in all material respects to the corresponding provisions of the 1999 Act and the 2002 Rules made thereunder viz. Section 25(3) and Rule 64. The impugned order having been passed without following the provisions of Section 25(3) is void.
The public notice does not constitute compliance with the provisions of Section 25(3). Section 25(3) requires the Registrar to send the notice "to the registered proprietor". A general public is not contemplated under the section.
K.R. Shriram, J.
1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of respondent no.1 removing from the register the petitioner's trade mark CIPLA and a writ of mandamus directing him to restore to the register the petitioner's said trade mark.
3. The mark was registered with effect from 6.11.1945 as evidenced by a certificate of registration dated 10.02.1949. The registration was renewed from time to time and was last renewed for a period of 7 years on 6.11.1995 till 6.11.2002. Thereafter due to inadvertence the registration was not renewed.
4. Sometime in the first quarter of 2012, the petitioner came to know that its mark had been removed from the register due to non-renewal. The petitioner however, had not received any notice as per Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from respondent no.1 notifying it of the date of expiration and the conditions as to payment of fees and otherwise upon which a renewal of registration may be obtained. The petitioner therefore, caused an RTI application to be submitted on 24.04.2012 seeking information as to whether any notice in Form-O3 was issued and if so, to whom it was issued, the date of dispatch thereof, the address to which it was dispatched and proof of delivery of the notice. The petitioner received a reply dated 14th May 2012 from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Mark (Central Public Information Officer) stating: “As per Renewal Diary O-3 record is not available for the year 2002”.
5. Mr. Desai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is contrary to section 25 of the Act and in particular sub-section (3) thereof and Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002.
(A) Section 25 reads as under:-
25. Duration, renewal, removal and restoration of registration-
(1) The registration of a trade mark, after the commencement of this Act, shall be for a period of ten years, but may be renewed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The Registrar shall, on application made by the registered proprietor of a trade mark in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period and subject to payment of the prescribed fee, renew the registration of the trade mark for a period of ten years from the date of expiration of the original registration or of the last renewal of registration, as the case may be (which date is in this section referred to as the expiration of the last registration).
(3) At the prescribed time before the expiration of the last registration of a trade mark the Registrar shall send notice in the prescribed manner to the registered proprietor of the date of expiration and the conditions as to payment of fees and otherwise upon which a renewal of registration may be obtained, and, if at the expiration of the time prescribed in that behalf those conditions have not been duly complied with the Registrar may remove the trade mark from the register.
Provided that the Registrar shall not remove the trade mark from the register if an application is made in the prescribed form and the prescribed fee and surcharge is paid within six months from the expiration of the last registration of the trade mark and shall renew the registration of the trade mark for a period of ten years under sub-section (2).
Where a trade mark has been removed from the register for non-payment of the prescribed fee, the Registrar shall, after six months and within one year from the expiration of the last registration of the trade mark, on receipt of an application in the prescribed form and on payment of the prescribed fee, if satisfied that it is just so to do, restore the trade mark to the register and renew the registration of the trade mark either generally or subject to such conditions or limitations as he thinks fit to impose, for a period of ten years from the expiration of the last registration.”