The time limit for filing evidence in opposition proceedings under the Trade Marks Act is mandatory and cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period, leading to deemed abandonment if not adhered to.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been held through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant - Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter, `the 1999 Act') challenging the order passed by the Trade Marks Registry dated 21st July, 2022 dismissing Opposition No. 204995 of the Appellant/Opponent (hereinafter, `Appellant') under Section 21 of the 1999 Act. The Opposition was filed against trade mark application no.1309040 of Respondent No.1/ Applicant (hereinafter, `Respondent No.1') for the mark `DABURGLUCORID KP (Label)' in class 5.

3. Vide the said order, the extension of time sought by the Appellant for taking the evidence on record under Rule 50(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, (hereinafter, `2002 Rules'), after delay in service of evidence to the Respondent No.1, was rejected by the Registrar of Trade Marks. In effect the Opposition was deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 50(2) of the 2002 Rules.

4. The legal issue that has arisen for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the time limit for filing of evidence in support of Opposition to trade mark can be extended beyond the period prescribed in Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules.

5. The Appellant in the present appeal is the proprietor of the mark `GLUCORED' under no. 681897 in class 5 since 1995. It is stated that the Appellant's mark continues to be valid, subsisting and is renewed up to 28th September, 2025.The same can be viewed on the Trade Marks Registry website. The Appellant is stated to have filed other Opposition proceedings against the same Respondent which subsisted and Opposition was granted in favour of the Appellant.

6. In the present appeal, the counter statement was served on the Opponent/ Appellant on 12th June, 2007. This position is not disputed by either of the parties. Evidence in Opposition was filed by the Opponent with the Trade Marks Registry on 10th August, 2007 (limitation of 2 months was to expire on 13th August, 2007). The error / lapse on behalf of the Appellant was that before filing the hard copy of the evidence in support of the opposition in the Trade Marks Registry, a copy of the same was not served on the Respondent No.1 within the prescribed time. The same was only served via courier on 14th August, 2007 and received by the Applicant on 16th August, 2007 (delay of 3 days).

7. The Respondent No.1 then sought an extension of one month by filing the form TM-56 on 16th October, 2007 to file its evidence. However, no evidence was filed. The Appellant then wrote a letter dated 30th January, 2008 to the Registrar of Trade Marks that despite service of evidence under Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules, the evidence under Rule 51 of the 2002 Rules was not filed by Respondent No.1. Subsequently, the Appellant submitted a letter dated 15th February, 2008 to the Registrar of Trade Marks to close the evidence and put the matter for hearing. However, there was no communication from any party. On 14th August, 2017, after a lapse of almost nine years, the Appellant again wrote a letter to the Registrar of Trade Marks informing the Registry of the status of the case- i.e., pendency of Opposition. The Appellant in the said letter requested the Registrar of Trade Marks to close the evidence and fix the matter for hearing.

8. The matter was then listed for hearing. During course of the hearing, Respondent No.1 took an objection that Rule 50 evidence as per the 2002 Rules was filed belatedly, as it was sent to the Respondent No.1 one month late. This submission was accepted by the Registrar, who then held as under:

"Proceedings have taken place under Section 21 of the Trade Mark Act. 1999, by the above named opponent to oppose the registration of the trade mark applied for by the above named applicant and whereas Mr. Kanv Saggar, Legal Executive of the applicant, appeared for the applicant as constituted attorney. Ms. Swati Meena (Adv.) Appeared for the opponent.

The Ld. constitu