Procedural fairness mandates proper service of summons before closing a party's right to file a response in rectification proceedings, highlighting the necessity for courts to act in a manner that does not unduly prejudice any party's rights.

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

IA No.48849/2024 in O.A. 223/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63/2024, IA No. 48832/2024 in O.A. 219/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024, IA No.48833/2024 in O.A. 220/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2024, IA No.48834/2024 in O.A. 221/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2024 & IA No.48848/2024 in O.A. 222/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 67/2024 (All for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals).

1. For the reasons stated in the Applications, the same are allowed.

2. The Applications are disposed of.

O.A. 223/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63/2024, O.A. 219/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024, O.A. 220/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD- TM) 65/2024, O.A. 221/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2024 & O.A. 222/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 67/2024

INTRODUCTION

3. The present Appeals arise from proceedings in the Rectification Petitions (“Rectification Petitions”) filed against the registered Trade Marks of the Appellant, wherein the Appellant’s right to file the Reply in the Rectification Petitions was closed by the learned Joint Registrar of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2024 (“Impugned Order”). The Appellant and the Respondent herein are Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioner respectively in the Rectification Petitions. The Parties are referred to by their standing in the present Appeals.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The Respondent herein has filed the Rectification Petitions before this Court seeking rectification of the registration of the Trade Marks by the Appellant under Sections 9, 11, 18, 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) and for directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the said Trade Marks from the register under Section 47 / 57 / 125 of the Act.

5. It is stated that the Appellant and the Respondent are into litigation since 2017 as Suit between the parties bearing CS. 217/2021 titled as “ Star Sintered Products Limited and Ors. Vs. Karan Bhutani ” (“Suit”) for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining passing of, dilution, damages and rendition of account and counterclaim under CS. 218/2021 titled as “Karan Bhutani vs Star Sintered Products Limited & Anr” (“Counterclaim”) are pending before the learned District Judge-02, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”). According to the Appellant, the Respondent has not sought any permission from the learned Trial Court before filing the Rectification Petitions before this Court and that the Rectification Petitions are devoid of merits and ought to be dismissed as such.

6. It is the Appellant’s case, that the Appellant was not aware of the Rectification Petitions and, therefore, the Appellant had not entered the appearance. However, the Appellant was appearing in CS(COMM) 97/2022 (“HC Suit”) titled as “Star Sintered Products Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mr.Karan Bhutani trading as M/s KMSP Industries” filed by the Respondent before this Court. The HC Suit is for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of Trade Mark, passing off, violation of corporate name of the Respondent, violation of copyright, damages, delivery up, etc. It is the Appellant’s case that the Appellant for the first time became aware of the Rectification Petitions filed by the Respondent when the said Rectification Petitions were clubbed with the HC Suit on 25.09.2024.

7. The order dated 20.05.2024 passed by this Court in the Rectification Petitions does not record the appearance of the Appellant. However,