Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Dhiraj Kumar Nanda – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Appellant-Dhiraj Kumar Nanda has filed the present appeal under Section 91(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking setting aside of the order dated 23rd September, 2022 by which the Appellant's Trade Mark Application No. 1844701 (hereinafter, `the Application') has been treated as abandoned.
3. The case of the Appellant is that the Appellant had filed a Trade Mark Application bearing no. 1844701 for the mark `NUTRILIFE' in Class 5 for `pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations' on 28th July, 2009. The said Application was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 1705 on 10th August, 2015. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2-M/s Alticor Inc. filed a Notice of opposition to application for registration of a trade mark under Section 21(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and opposed the Application on 2nd December 2015. The hearing in the Opposition was scheduled for 6th July 2022 and 3rd September, 2022.
4. On 23rd September 2022, the Application was treated as abandoned. The case of the Appellant is that it did not receive any hearing notices in the matter and thus could not defend its position qua
The voluntary nature of abandonment, the strict construction of Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, and the importance of valid service of opposition notices.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the time limit for filing the counter statement in trade mark applications, emphasizing the requirement of actual receipt of ....
The court emphasized the importance of the Registrar's decision on the petitioner's request for abandonment being made within a specified time frame and in accordance with principles of natural justi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the option given to the opponent to adduce evidence or communicate in writing the intention to rely on the facts stated in the notice of opposit....
The discretion of the authority in treating an application as abandoned under Rule 56(3) of the 2002 Rules is justified, and the absence of a provision enabling the setting aside of an ex parte order....
Timeliness in responding to trademark examination reports is crucial, and delays not condoned; rights in the mark persist despite abandonment.
Procedural ambiguities in trademark laws should favor the substantive rights of opponents, ensuring that minor delays do not unjustly negate the right to contest trademark registrations.
Refusal of a trademark application without a proper hearing violates the principles of natural justice, requiring reforms in the current hearing procedures.
The main legal point established is the peremptory nature of Rule 50(1) of the Trade Marks Rules 2002 and the statutory sequitur of deemed abandonment under Rule 50(2).
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
