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 justice and fair play.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Rule nisi.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in all these writ petitions is that the opposition filed by Respondent 2 to the applications of the petitioner for registration of its trademarks had to be treated as abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 and that though the petitioner had, vide communications dated 19 April 2023 and 11 July 2023, called upon the Registrar to declare the opposition filed by Respondent 2 as having been abandoned, there is no decision on the said letters.

4. Both sides are agreeable to the disposal of these petitions with a direction to the Registrar or the competent officer authorised by the Registrar to take a decision on the petitioner's letters dated 19 April 2023 and 11 July 2023 within a period of four weeks in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed in the statute in that regard and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play.

5. The petitioner and Respondent 2 shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing in these matters, for which purpose, they are directed to appear before the competent officer on 16 August 2023.

6. All these writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

7. Miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.

8. The Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the letters dated 19 April 2023 or 11 July 2023, and that the concerned officer would dispose of the petitioner's request/prayer, as contained in the said letters, on merits and in accordance with law.