Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Ashiana Ispat Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kamdhenu Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding advertisement of trademark applications. (Para 5) |
| 2. impugned judgment highlights deficiencies in trademark registration processes. (Para 7) |
| 3. maintainability of writ petitions under article 226. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. In view of the nature of the dispute, we deem it appropriate to commence this judgment by recounting the procedure for registration of a trade mark, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999[“the TMA” hereinafter] read with the Trade Marks Rules, 2017[“the TMR” hereinafter.]
2. Procedure for registration of a trade mark
2.1 Any application, seeking registration of a trade mark, is required to be submitted under Section 18(1)[18. Application for registration. –
(1) Any person claiming to be the proprietor of a trade mark used or proposed to be used by him, who is desirous of registering it, shall apply in writing to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for the registration of his trade mark.] of the TMA, to the Registrar of Trade Marks. Section 18(4)[Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Registrar may refuse the application or may accept it absolutely or subject to such amendments, modifications, conditions or limita
Writ petitions challenging trademark registration procedures must ensure procedural fairness, including issuance of notice and opportunity for affected parties to respond.
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....
Section 20 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for advertisement of an application, either after acceptance or before acceptance, so as to afford an opportunity to the public, to oppose the registratio....
The Registrar must consistently apply relevant laws in trademark registration, ensuring procedural compliance, and cannot ignore third-party rights under the Trade Marks Act, allowing for comprehensi....
The trial court must assess only the prima facie tenability of claims regarding trademark validity under Section 124, without delving into the merits of those claims.
The court established that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a civil suit must be stayed if a rectification application regarding trademark validity is pending.
The court established that Senior Examiners can exercise quasi-judicial powers to reject Trade Mark applications if duly authorized, and must provide reasoned orders in compliance with statutory requ....
The court affirmed that not all amendments to a trademark application are substantial alterations; the amendment's nature must be assessed based on its impact on the original application.
The right to cancel a trademark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act is independent of ongoing infringement suits and remains available for invocation regardless of related Section 124 implication....
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
