Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Jagran Prakashan Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark application abandonment due to non-response. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. fault of agent should not prejudice appellant. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal does not prejudice future applications. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29th March, 2016 passed by the Respondent -Registrar of Trade Marks by which the Trademark Application No.2380329 of the Appellant for the mark '
' (JAGRAN) in Class 12, was abandoned on the ground of non-prosecution due to non-filing of the reply to the examination report.
3. The said Trademark Application for the mark `JAGRAN' along with the device was filed in class 12 on `proposed to be used' basis by the Appellant -Jagran Prakashan Limited on 16th March, 2012. The goods in respect of which the said application was filed were `Vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land, air and water'. The said application was examined and the First Examination Report ("FER") was issued on 31st July, 2013.
4. The same was communicated to M/s. Rome
Timeliness in responding to trademark examination reports is crucial, and delays not condoned; rights in the mark persist despite abandonment.
Failure to receive hearing notice for opposition proceedings can lead to the setting aside of the abandonment of a trade mark application.
The discretion of the authority in treating an application as abandoned under Rule 56(3) of the 2002 Rules is justified, and the absence of a provision enabling the setting aside of an ex parte order....
The court emphasized the importance of the Registrar's decision on the petitioner's request for abandonment being made within a specified time frame and in accordance with principles of natural justi....
The court emphasized that the legal fiction in Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act should not defeat a substantive right of the petitioner.
The voluntary nature of abandonment, the strict construction of Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, and the importance of valid service of opposition notices.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks to pass a valid order and the consequences of a non-existent order on an application for reg....
Trademark applications cannot be refused based on objections that are unsubstantiated, particularly when prior permissions exist and are not recorded by the Registrar.
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
