Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Meakin Limited & Anr. – Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 293 of 2021
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Important Points
Subject
Intellectual Property Law - Trademark Disputes
Headnote
Trademark - Dispute over expired mark - The dispute became academic as the impugned mark had expired and the respondent did not intend to renew it. The Registrar of Trade Marks undertook to rectify the position of the register within three weeks, leading to the disposal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over an expired trademark mark, which was still reflected on the Registrar of Trade Marks website.
Finding of the Court:
The dispute was considered academic as the mark had expired and the respondent did not intend to renew it. The Registrar of Trade Marks undertook to rectify the position of the register within three weeks, leading to the disposal of the petition.
Issues: Dispute over the validity of an expired trademark mark and its reflection on the Registrar of Trade Marks website.
Ratio Decidendi: The dispute became academic due to the expiration of the mark and the respondent's intention not to renew it. The undertaking by the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register's position led to the disposal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of as the dispute was considered academic due to the expiration of the mark and the respondent's intention not to renew it.
Mr. Waseem Shuaib Ahmed, Mr. Suryanshu Priyadarshi and Ms. Soumya Khandelwal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shivendra Pratap Singh and Mr. Navdeep Suhag, Advocates, for the Respondent 1.
Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advocate, for the office of Trade Marks.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Mr. Navdeep Suhag, learned Counsel for Respondent 1, submits on instructions, that this dispute has become academic as the impugned mark of Respondent 1 has expired and Respondent 1 does not intend to renew the mark.
2. Mr. Waseem Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, however, the mark continues to be reflected on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks as registered.
3. Mr. Paikaday, who appears on behalf of the Registrar of Trade Marks, undertakes that the position of the register would be rectified within a period of three weeks from today.
4. As such, recording the aforesaid submissions, the dispute in question does not survive for consideration.
5. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
6. Let the order be uploaded on the website of this Court within 24 hours.
