IMPORTANT POINT
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-mail service ineffective.

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 the right of Respondent 1 to file reply to this petition, noting the fact that Respondent 1 had been served but had not filed any reply till then. I may also note that Respondent 1 has been continuously absent in these proceedings ever since notice was issued in the appeal. Respondent 1 continues to remain unrepresented.

4. As such, I have heard Ms. Zeba Tarannum Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned CGSC for Respondent 2.

5. The issue is mercifully brief and so, likewise, will this order be.

6. It is not in dispute that the copy of the counter statement to the notice of opposition was dispatched on the opponent by the Trade Mark Registry on 22 November 2017 only by e-mail. The submission of Ms. Zeba Tarannum Khan is that e-mail is not one of the modes of services envisaged by Section 143[143. Address for service.-An address for service stated in an application or notice of opposition shall for the purposes of the application or notice of opposition be deemed to be the address of the applicant or opponent, as the case may be, and all documents in relation to the application or notice of opposition may be served by leaving them at or sending them by post to the address for service of the applicant or opponent, as the case may be.] of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and that, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant was appropriately served in the manner known to law.

7. Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act states that an address for service, stated in an application or notice of opposition shall, for the purposes of the said application or notice of opposition, be deemed to be the address of the applicant or the opponent, and permits service of all documents in relation to the application or the notice of opposition by leaving the documents at, or sending them by post to, the said address as provided in the application or notice of opposition.

8. In the event that an e-mail ID is provided by an applicant or an opponent in the notice of opposition, I do not think that there can be any manner of doubt that service of documents relating to the application or the notice of opposition at the said e-mail ID would suffice as service within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act. This is because, by providing his e-mail ID in the application or notice of opposition, the applicant or opponent clearly agrees to communications be addressed to him at the said e-mail ID. A message is clearly conveyed to the Registrar that service could be effected even at the said e-mail ID. The words "leaving them at" as employed in Section 143, in my view, have to be read expansively enough to cover service by e-mail where the applicant or the opponent provides an e-mail ID in the application or notice of opposition. In other words