Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited - Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks - Respondent
W.P.(C)-IPD 4 of 2022 & CM 27 of 2022 with W.P.(C)-IPD 88 of 2021 & CM 31 of 2021 with W.P.(C)-IPD 103 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 1907 of 2022, CM Appls. 5485 of 2022, 11118 of 2022 & 12729 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2022
Important Points
Subject
Intellectual Property - Trademarks
Headnote
(B) Compliance with Public Notice - Trademark Registry must accept oppositions filed despite expiry to uphold equity and prevent injustice to parties’ rights. (Paras 18, 19)
(C) Transparency and Accountability - Disclosures regarding oppositions entertained post-limitation non-compliance by CGPDTM officials, resulting in cost penalties imposed on responsible personnel for non-disclosure. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
Various Petitioners challenged the arbitrary rejection of their trademark oppositions by CGPDTM, which failed to consider the extension period mandated by the Supreme Court in response to the pandemic.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered that the oppositions be accepted and that registration certificates issued during the pandemic stand suspended until resolved.
Issues: Whether the extension of limitation period applied to trademark oppositions under the Trademarks Act and the conduct of CGPDTM in processing oppositions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the implications of Supreme Court’s order, emphasizing the importance of accepting late oppositions to avoid injustice and hold CGPDTM accountable.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; CGPDTM ordered to facilitate opposition filings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disallowance of oppositions due to limitation (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. alleged arbitrariness in trademark registry actions (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal basis for opposition timeline under trademark act (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court's directive on limitation during covid-19 (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. historical context on handling oppositions and limitations (Para 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 6. disciplinary actions against cgpdtm officials (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. pending oppositions and compliance with court directives (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. final orders on writ petitions and compliance (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are four writ petitions filed by different Petitioners who have been forced to approach this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the completely arbitrary and discriminatory manner in which the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks/Respondent (hereinafter "CGPDTM") has disallowed the Petitioners from filing oppositions to the trademark applications, which each of them wishes to oppose. The said oppositions have not been entertained on the ground that they were proposed to be filed beyond the time period of four months, as prescribed under Section 21 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter "Trademarks Act").
3. The details of the trademark applications in each of the cases are as under:
| W.P.(C.) NO. | TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. | DATE OF APPLICATION | TRADE MARK JOURNAL | DATE FOR EXPIRY OF PERIOD TO FILE OPPOSITIONS | STATUS AND DATE OF ISSUANCE OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE |
| W.P.(C)-IPD 88/2021 | 3872572 for `SANJIVANI MANTRA' | 28th June, 2018 | Trade Marks Journal No. 1999-0 dated 10th May, 2021 | 10th September, 2021 | Registration Certificate has been issued on 23rd September, 2021 |
| W.P.(C)-IPD 103/2021 | 3547316 for `GREASE BUCKET PUMP (Shape of Goods)' | 12th May, 2017 | Trademark Journal No. 1972-0 dated 2nd November, 2020 | 2nd March, 2021 | Registration Certificate has been issued on 8th April, 2021 |
| 3502874 for `DEVICE' | 3rd March, 2017 | Trade Mark Journal No. 1987-0 dated 15th February, 2021 | 15th June, 2021 | Registration certificate has been issued on 4th March, 2022 | |
| W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 | 4996426 for `RAZOMAX' | 7th June, 2021 | Trade Mark Journal No. 2009-0 dated 19th July, 2021 | 18th November, 2021 | Opposed |
| W.P. (C)1907/2022 | 5093598 for `SYZYGY' | 18th August, 2021 | Trade Marks Journal No: 2016 dated 6th September, 2021 | 6th January, 2022 | Registration Certificate has been issued on 25th February, 2022 |
4. Ld. counsels for the Petitioners submit that the arbitrary manner in which the Trademark Registry is functioning is evident from the fact that the benefit of the order of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation has been selectively given to some opponents and not to all. In some of these matters, it is submitted by ld. Counsels that when the opponents tried to file oppositions after the expiry of the four-month period, in view of the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court, the portal did not permit the said filing. The Petitioners tried to file the hard copy of oppositions which were also stated to have not been accepted. Repeated emails written by the opponents to the concerned office in the Trademark Registry also evinced no response whatsoever. It is the Petitioners' grievance that despite the Trademark Registry being aware of the oppositions of the Petitioners and of the present writ petitions having been filed, registration certificates have also been issued in three of the matters, without any reference to the Petitioners. Therefore, ld. Counsels submit that despite the Trademarks Registry being cognizant of the grievances of the Petitioners and the fact that they wish to file oppositions to the said applications, the registration certificates were issued in an indiscriminate manner.
5. Moreover, in all the three writ petitions where regi
