Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Suri Trading As M/s Armex Auto Industries – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 24 May 2018, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks apropos Opposition No. 851850 filed by the appellant to Application no. 1985391 of Respondent 1 seeking registration of the mark "ARMEX".
2. The impugned order reads thus:
"ORDER
Proceedings were initiated under Section 21 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, by the above named opponent to oppose the registration of trade mark applied for by the above named applicant and whereas the Counter Statement was filed by the applicant and the same was served to the opponent vide 2327514 dated 22/11/2017 and whereas within the time prescribed under the rules, neither any evidence in support of opposition was filed nor any statement was submitted on behalf of the opponent to the effect that the opponent does not desire to adduce evidence but wants to rely on the facts mentioned in the Notice of Opposition the abovementioned opposition is therefore deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules 2017.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that there shall be no order as to cost of these proceedings.
3. On 18 September 2023, the learned Joint Registrar in this Court closed t
Proper service of documents under Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 requires the provision of an e-mail ID in the application or notice of opposition. Failure to provide an e-mail ID renders e....
Proof of actual receipt of an opposition notice is necessary to avoid deeming a trademark application as abandoned under the Trade Marks Act.
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 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 Registrar of Trade Marks has a statutory duty to serve the counter statement to the opponent, and failure to do so invalidates the proceedings as per Section 21(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
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.
The evidence for trademark opposition filings must be submitted timely per the trademark regulations, although minor procedural errors do not invalidate the filings.
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
