The Registrar of Trade Marks cannot condone delay in review applications beyond the period prescribed by Trade Marks Rules, affirming adherence to statutory timelines.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 07.01.2020 passed by the learned Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi in TM-M Review Applications nos. 631248 for the mark "RITE KRANTI" [review filed by the respondent no. 2 against order dated 09.07.2002] and 765101 for the mark "B&M KRANTI" [review filed by the respondent no. 2 against order dated 11.08.2006], allowing the aforementioned review applications filed by the respondent no. 2.

2. By the application no. 631248 filed on 16.06.1994, the respondent no. 2 applied for the registration of the mark "RITE KRANTI" in Class 9 with respect to "water meters, oil meters, gas meters, speed meters and meters of all types". An Examination Report dated 05.10.1999 was issued by the respondent no.1 communicating the grounds of objection to the registration of the mark. Subsequently, vide an order dated 09.07.2002 the application was dismissed as "abandoned".

3. By the application no. 765101 filed on 28.07.1997, the respondent no. 2 had applied for the registration of the mark "B&M KRANTI" in Class 9 with respect to "water meters, oil meters, gas meters, speed meters and other meters of all types and all other goods included in class 9". An Examination Report dated 05.02.2003 was issued on this application by the respondent no. 1 communicating the grounds of objection to the registration of the mark. This application was also eventually dismissed as "abandoned" vide order dated 11.08.2006.

4. The respondent no. 2 applied for a review of the above orders vide applications dated 31.08.2019, inter alia, on the ground that though the Reply to the Examination Report had been filed by the previous Attorney of the respondent no.2, neither the respondent no. 2 nor its Attorney had received the hearing notices dated 09.07.2002 [for application no. 631248] and 11.08.2006 [for application no. 765101] and, therefore, the applicant/respondent no. 2 in the petition could not attend the hearing in the applications on the said dates. The respondent no. 2 also contended that the orders of refusal of the applications were not served on the respondent no.2.

5. The impugned orders allowing these review applications are almost verbatim. The order passed by the learned Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, as far as application no. 631248 is concerned, is reproduced hereinunder:

"An application for registration of trade mark consisting of word" RITE KRANTI" was filed by the aforesaid Applicant under application No 631248 in respect of applied goods included in Class - 9. The application was examined and examination report containing the objections to the acceptance of application for registration of trade mark was communicated to the Applicant. On the request of the Applicant, a hearing was fixed in this matter. Eventually on 16 September 2019, the application came up before me for hearing and the order was passed accordingly. The present petition on form TM-M has been filed for review of the order dated.

Made submission that applicant never received the examination report, affidavit to this effect also filed, review allowed on the basis of affidavit. The request on form TM-M is accordingly Allowed.

Sealed and signed at the Trade Marks Registry, Branch Delhi on dated: 07 January 2020."

Submissions on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while in the review applications it was admitted by the respondent no. 2 that the Examination Report had been receive