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
| 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
The Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic applies to trademark opposition filings, necessitating CGPDTM to accept late submissions to uphold equity.
The CGPDTM must maintain clear communication and adhere to procedural fairness while processing trademark oppositions, especially regarding limitation extensions during the pandemic.
The evidence for trademark opposition filings must be submitted timely per the trademark regulations, although minor procedural errors do not invalidate the filings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Rule 50(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, is mandatory, and the Registrar does not have the authority to condone any delay....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternative remedies provided by the Trade Marks Act before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of In....
The Registrar of Trade Marks cannot condone delay in review applications beyond the period prescribed by Trade Marks Rules, affirming adherence to statutory timelines.
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 t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 36E(5) of the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that the deeming provision is applicable only when no opposition has been ....
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
