The 2017 Rules repealed the 2002 Rules and the procedural changes introduced by the 2017 Rules apply retrospectively to ongoing proceedings initiated under the 2002 Rules.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. The crux of the present appeal revolves around Appellant's entitlement to furnish additional evidence, in a bid to bolster its claim for the registration of a proposed trademark. The situation calls for the resolution of a critical question of law, the nexus between the chronology of the application and the procedural rules in effect during different stages of its pendency, thereby setting the stage for the legal quandary.

FACTS

2. Originating in 1972, the Appellant - SAP SE, has emerged as a significant player in the domain of providing synergistic business solutions for an array of industries and ranks amongst the world's leading business software entities. Despite its Germany-based headquarters, the Appellant's influence has spread globally, with an established presence in several countries. Marking its entry into India in 1992, the Appellant has been engaged in the distribution of products/services under the flagship trademark "SAP". The Appellant holds ownership over several intellectual properties, notably the trademark "SAP", a moniker adopted way back in 1972 and utilized extensively and uninterruptedly since then. The said trademark has become intrinsically intertwined with Appellant's business persona, exemplified in its trading style, corporate identity, and online presence. In an effort to secure its intellectual property rights, the Appellant has pursued and achieved registrations for the trademarks "SAP" and "SAP" formative marks in multiple classes.

3. To add to its bouquet of registrations, on 06th December, 1999, the Appellant filed an application for registration of trademark "SAP" in class 09 in respect of "machine-readable data media of all types provided with programs; computer programs and software of all types; magnetic carriers, namely magnetic tapes, disks, wafers and cards". The application was filed claiming priority from German trademark No. 399 46 355.0 dated 03rd August, 1999, and use since 01st November, 1995. The registration process was punctuated by a notice of opposition dated 02nd August, 2007 filed by Swiss Auto Products (Respondent No. 1), challenging the registration. This opposition notice was forwarded to the Appellant's attorney on 12th October, 2011 and received by them on 24th October, 2011, calling for a counter-statement. The requested counter-statement was submitted by the Appellant on 21st December, 2011 and was subsequently forwarded to Respondent No. 1's attorney on 09th July, 2013 via letter No. TOP/3089, soliciting evidence to support their opposition.

4. During this period, both parties engaged in multifarious discussions in pursuit of a mutually agreeable settlement; however, these deliberations were to no avail. On 09th October, 2013, Respondent No. 1 reached out to the Registrar of Trademarks (Respondent No. 2), expressing a desire to rely on the facts detailed in the opposition notice as part evidence. Later, on 19th October, 2013, Respondent No. 1 submitted an affidavit of evidence in support of opposition, a copy of which was delivered to the Appellant's attorney on 23rd October, 2013.

5. According to the Appellant, the copy received by it lacked the enclosed annexures labelled A to C. A request for these omitted annexures was promptly made by the Appellant's attorney on 24th October, 2013. Respondent No. 1, in response, demanded compensation for the expenses incurred in the photocopying and dispatch of the missing annexures. Finally, on 12th November, 2013, the Appellant's attorney received the requested copies of the annexures mentioned in the affidavit. Vide letter dated 09th January, 2014 addressed to Respondent No. 2, the Appellant postulated that the deadline for submitting evidence to support their application should commence from 12th November, 2013, i.e., the date on which the complete set of annexures was furnished. To this end, they also proceeded to file multiple TM-56 forms, each requesting a one-month extension of time. On 09