Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Vaibhav Chaurasia – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C)-IPD 18 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Assignment Deed - Trademark Registration - The petitioner sought a writ to direct the Registrar of Trademarks to process and grant the request for substitution of the name of the petitioner as the proprietor of a trademark. The court directed the Registrar to take a decision on the petitioner's application within six weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to direct the Registrar of Trademarks to process and grant the request for substitution of the name of the petitioner as the proprietor of a trademark.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take a decision on the petitioner's application within a period of six weeks.
Issues: The grievance of the petitioner was limited to the processing and granting of the request for substitution of the name of the petitioner as the proprietor of a trademark.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assurance from the respondent's counsel that the Registrar of Trademarks would take a decision on the petitioner's application within six weeks.
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of with the direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to take a decision on the petitioner's application within a period of six weeks.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
CM 43/2023 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C)-IPD 18/2023
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is very limited. The petitioner has, consequent to an assignment, in his favour, of the device mark [IMG] by M/s. Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd, vide Assignment Deed 18th May 2022, applied, to the Registrar of Trademarks for substitution of the name of the petitioner as the proprietor of the aforesaid mark, which stands registered in favour of M/s. Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd, vide Certificate of Registration dated 17th January 2019 w.e.f. 27th December 2013. The only prayer of the petitioner is that the Registrar may be directed to process and grant the said request as sought vide TM-P application dated 19th May 2022 and to display the updated and correct status of the said mark on its online database. The prayer clause in the petition reads thus:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
i) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to process and allow the request made on TM-P dated 19.05.2022 in respect of Trade Mark No. 2650542 in Class 30 filed by the petitioner;
ii) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to display the updated and correct status of the Trade Mark No. 2650542 in Class 30 on its online database;
iii) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records relating to application file of Trade Mark No. 2650542 in Class 30 from respondent; and
iv) Pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case"
4. Mr. Sirish Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits on instructions that the respondent - Registrar of Trademarks would take a decision on the petitioner's application within a period of six weeks from today. In that view of the matter, Mr. Kantawala submits that this writ petition may be disposed of.
5. Recording the statement of Mr. Sirish Mishra and directing the Registrar of Trademarks to take a decision on the petitioner's application being TM-P application dated 19th May 2022 within a period of six weeks from today, this petition stands disposed of.
The court's decision was influenced by the assurance from the respondent's counsel regarding the Registrar of Trademarks taking a decision on the petitioner's application within six weeks.
Disputes over expired trademarks may become academic if the mark has expired and the respondent does not intend to renew it.
The court directed the Registrar to correct the status of the expired trade mark on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternative remedies provided by the Trade Marks Act before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of In....
The court established that the Registrar's failure to notify the registered proprietor of trademark expiration allows for renewal applications by the assignee as long as the trademarks remain registe....
Court directs expeditious disposal of trade mark record mutation application post-assignment.
A Writ of Mandamus can be issued to direct statutory authorities, such as the Trademark Registry, to dispose of pending applications for the recordal of subsequent proprietorship within a reasonable,....
The court affirmed that not all amendments to a trademark application are substantial alterations; the amendment's nature must be assessed based on its impact on the original application.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
