SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Ashiana Ispat Limited - Appellant
Versus
Kamdhenu Limited & Ors. - Respondents 
LPA 407/2025, CM APPL. 36781/2025 & CM APPL. 36783/2025
Decided on : 03-09-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Sudan, Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar, Ms. Anannya Mehan, Mr. Swastik Bisarya and Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. J Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Sudarshan Bansal, Mr. Shivang Bansal, Mr. Avinash and Mr. Shivendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Ankush Kapoor and Mr.Vishwadeep Chandrakar, Advs., Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Ms. Kangan Roda, SPC Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv.

Writ petitions challenging trademark registration procedures must ensure procedural fairness, including issuance of notice and opportunity for affected parties to respond.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 18(1), 18(4), 19, 20(1), 21(1), 23, 33 - Writ petitions challenging the advertising of trademark registration applications for AL KAMDHENU GOLD - Respondent contended that several registered trademarks were not cited by the Registrar - Single Judge allowed petitions without notice to appellant - This decision quashed and remanded for de novo adjudication by the Registrar, upholding the principle that every affected party must be given an opportunity to respond. (Paras 1, 5, 18, 12.1, 14)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Proper exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Circuit courts have the mandate to not only correct but also ensure that processes within the Trade Marks Registry are adhered to. (Paras 18, 11.12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought registration of trademarks but was met with challenges from the respondent, alleging the Registrar's failure to cite conflicting trademarks among other irregularities in the registration process.

Findings of Court:
The appeal against the Single Judge's order, which allowed the writ petitions without the appellant's counter-affidavit, was upheld to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to due process.

Issues: The crucial issues involved the maintainability and entertainability of the writ petitions in the context of alternative remedies under the Trade Marks Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the non-issuance of notice to the appellant constituted a procedural error requiring remand while stressing the appellate court's obligation to allow affected parties adequate opportunities in a timely manner.

Result: The impugned judgment was quashed; writ petitions remanded for re-examination.

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 limitations, if any, as he may think fit.] empowers the Registrar to either refuse the application, or accept it, absolutely or conditionally. Section 19[19. Withdrawal of acceptance. – Where, after the acceptance of an application for registration of a trade mark but before its registration, the Registrar is satisfied—
(a) that the application has been accepted in error; or
(b) that in the circumstances of the case the trade mark should not be registered or should be registered subject to conditions or limitations or to conditions additional to or different from the conditions or limitations subject to which the application has been accepted,
the Registrar may, after hearing the applicant if he so desires, withdraw the acceptance and proceed as if the application had not been accepted.] further empowers the Registrar, if he feels that the application ought not to have been accepted, or that it should have been accepted subject to conditions other than those subject to which it was accepted, to withdraw the acceptance. If the application is accepted, Section 20(1)[20. Advertisement of application. –
(1) When an application for registration of a trade mark has been accepted, whether absolutely or subject to conditions or limitations, the Registrar shall, as soon as may be after acceptance, cause the application as accepted together with the conditions or limitations, if any, subject to which it has been accepted, to be advertised in the prescribed manner:
Provided that the Registrar may cause the application to be advertised before acceptance if it relates to a trade mark to which sub-section (1) of Section 9 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 apply, or in any other case where it appears to him that it is expedient by reason of any exceptional circumstances so to do.] requires the Registrar to advertise the application, along with the conditions, if any, subject to which it was accepted.[7 The proviso to Section 20(1) permits the Registrar to advertise the application before acceptance in certain exceptional cases. We are not concerned with a situation in which the proviso applies.] Any person who seeks to oppose the registration of the trade mark may then, under Section 21(1)[21. Opposition to registration. –
(1) Any person may, within four months from the date of the advertisement or re-advertisement of an application for registration, give notice in writing in the prescribed manner and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, to the Registrar, of opposition to the registration.], submit a notice of opposition, with the Registrar. The Registrar would, under Section 21(2)[(2) The Registrar shall serve a copy of the notice on the applicant for registration and, within two months from the receipt by the applicant of such copy of the notice of opp


































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top