Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
La Gajjar Machineries Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kesari Lal - Aruna Industries & Anr. - Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 26 of 2021
Decided On : 16-10-2023
The petitioner raised concerns about the impugned mark ARUNA, which had expired but was still shown as 'registered' on the Registrar of Trade Marks website. The Registrar acknowledged the delay in updating the status and was directed to correct it to 'expired'. The court disposed of the petition with liberty for the petitioner to revive it if the impugned trade mark is renewed.
ORDER (Oral)
1. Mr. Bhatnagar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submits that, though the impugned mark ARUNA, against which the present petition has been preferred, has expired, it is still shown as "registered" in favour of Respondent 1 on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
2. Mr. Paikaday, who appears on behalf of the Registrar of Trade Marks, submits that, at times, some delay is occasioned in showing the correct status of the trade mark.
3. As the trade mark has yet not been renewed, the Registrar is directed forthwith to correct the status of the impugned mark and show it as expired on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
4. In that view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive this petition by means of an application, should the impugned trade mark be renewed.
The court directed the Registrar to correct the status of the expired trade mark on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the renewal notice and the entitlement of the pe....
The court established that the Registrar's failure to notify the registered proprietor of trademark expiration allows for renewal applications by the assignee as long as the trademarks remain registe....
The court's decision was influenced by the assurance from the respondent's counsel regarding the Registrar of Trademarks taking a decision on the petitioner's application within six weeks.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a renewal request should be justified, considering the communication of registration certificate and renewal notice, as pe....
The Registrar of Trade Marks must issue notices under Section 25(3) to the registered proprietor to ensure compliance before trademark removal; failure to do so enables renewal despite lapse.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of justifying undue delay in seeking renewal of a trademark and the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions.
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
