Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited – Appellant
Versus
Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. future proceedings and status reporting (Para 1 , 9) |
| 2. review application and communication lapses (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. clarification of lapses and costs imposed (Para 4) |
| 4. pending oppositions and recruitment of officers (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. There are two aspects being considered in these matters.
i) The first relates to the review application filed on behalf of the officers of the CGPDTM seeking review of the order dated 21st March, 2022, by which Rs.1 lakh was imposed as costs on each of the officers for lapses in communicating incorrect facts to the Court.
ii) The second concerns the issue of a large number of pending oppositions, ripe for hearing, in the CGPDTM office.
3. Post the passing of the order dated 21st March, 2022, and filing of the review petition, this Court has heard the matters on 8th April, 2022, 11th April, 2022 and today. Mr. Shakti Dhar Ojha, Deputy Registrar, CGPDTM, Mumbai and two officers Mr. Sachin Sharma and Mr. Juneja - have joined the various hearings. Affidavits have also been filed by some of these officials, explaining the reasons why the Court w
The CGPDTM must maintain clear communication and adhere to procedural fairness while processing trademark oppositions, especially regarding limitation extensions during the pandemic.
The court recognizes the progress made in opposition hearings and underscores the necessity of increasing staffing to address backlog effectively.
Patents Act requires adherence to procedures in post-grant oppositions, emphasizing natural justice and timely resolutions to prevent delays in patent adjudication.
The evidence for trademark opposition filings must be submitted timely per the trademark regulations, although minor procedural errors do not invalidate the filings.
The court ruled that timely filing of evidence with the Trademark Registry outweighs a minor delay in service, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness in opposition proceedings.
Court directs expeditious disposal of delayed trademark opposition proceedings within six months for timely justice.
Court mandated prompt resolution of delayed trademark opposition proceedings to prevent prejudice to the applicant.
Court directs expeditious disposal of trademark opposition within six months for timely justice.
Delay in trademark opposition proceedings warrants judicial intervention for timely resolution.
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
