A trademark application may be reconsidered if the applicant can demonstrate that prior decisions were not communicated, allowing for appeals beyond the standard time limit under specific circumstances.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The appellant applied for registration of the label "Modern Namkeen Karare Lal" as a device mark under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2. Vide order dated 1st July 2015, the application was rejected by the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks on the ground that the appellant had withdrawn its trademark application by letter dated 26/30th June 2015. The appellant applied for review of the aforesaid order under Section 127(c) of the Trade Marks Act.

3. The said review application stands rejected by the following order dated 10th July 2018:

"IN THE MATTER OF Application No. 1937329 filed in the name(s) of M/s. MODERN SNACKS (P) LIMITED

D - 44, PANKI SITE II, KANPUR, U.P

And

IN THE MATTER OF TM-M dated 29/07/2015 filed by M/s. S. SINGH & ASSOCIATES

213, 3RD FLOOR PARMANAND COLONY, DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR DELHI-9

Present None present Advocate of M/s. S. SINGH & ASSOCIATES for the petitioner

ORDER

An application for registration of trade mark consisting of word "MODERN NAMKEEN KARARE LAL (LABEL)" was filed by the aforesaid Applicant under application No 1937329 in respect of all goods included in Class - 30. 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 20 April 2015, the application came up before me for hearing. Neither anybody appeared for hearing, nor was any application for adjournment filed on behalf of the applicant. Accordingly the application was treated as abandoned and the order was passed accordingly.

The present petition on form TM-M has been filed for review of the order dated 20 April 2015.

None present

The request on form TM-M is accordingly Refused. Sealed and signed at the Trade Marks Registry, Branch Delhi on dated: 10 July 2018.

(Dr. PRITHPAL KAUR)

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS"

4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has appealed to this Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.

5. Section 91(1)¹ requires the appeal to be filed within a period of three months from the date on which the order under appeal is communicated to the appellant. The proviso to Section 91(2)² , however, allows an appeal to be admitted even after the expiry of the period of three months provided sufficient cause is shown by the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal.

6. Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the present appeal is belated and that no application for condonation of delay has been filed with it.

7. Para 3 of the present appeal deals with the aspect of limitation. It is averred that the impugned order dated 10th July 2018 has yet to be communicated to the appellant and that the appellant came to know of the said order only in the second week of December 2020 while making a random search on the website of the Registrar of Trademarks to ascertain the status of its application.

8. In any event, a reading of the impugned order dated 10th July 2018 passed by the learned Registrar of Trademarks on the Review Application filed by the appellant reveals that the application effectively been rejected on the sole ground of default in appearance.

9. Though Mr. Vaidyanathan is agreeable to the Review Application being remanded for a re-consideration, keeping all contentions of both parties alive, he submits that he should not be deprived of his right to urge that the present appeal is belated.

10. I do not deem it necessary to keep this mat