Back
ANITA SUMANTH
Victor Guedes Industria E. Commercio S. A. , Rep. herein by its Authorised Signatory Govardhan Gajjal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks Trade Mark Office, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st Respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 13.10.2014 passed in Opposition No.776874 to Application No.1796011, Quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st Respondent to take on record, the Evidence in Support of Opposition filed by the Petitioner in Opposition No.776874 to Application No.1796011 in Class 29.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st Respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 23.10.2014 passed in Opposition No.MAS-748031 to Application No.1708645, Quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st Respondent to take on record, the Evidence in Support of Opposition filed by the Petitioner in Opposition No.MAS-748031 to Application No.1708645 in Class 9.)
Common Order
1. These two Writ Petitions raise a common question of law and involve similar factual matrices as well. Hence both are disposed by way of a single order.
2. In W.P.No.10332 of 2016, the petitioner, Victor Guedes I
The time limit for filing evidence in opposition proceedings under the Trade Marks Act is mandatory and cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period, leading to deemed abandonment if not adhered t....
The court established that the timelines for submitting evidence in support of trademark applications are mandatory and cannot be extended by later procedural rules, affirming the principle of deemed....
The Registrar of Trade Marks cannot condone delay in review applications beyond the period prescribed by Trade Marks Rules, affirming adherence to statutory timelines.
The main legal point established is the peremptory nature of Rule 50(1) of the Trade Marks Rules 2002 and the statutory sequitur of deemed abandonment under Rule 50(2).
The evidence for trademark opposition filings must be submitted timely per the trademark regulations, although minor procedural errors do not invalidate the filings.
Timelines in opposition proceedings under the Trade Marks Act are mandatory; failure to comply results in deemed abandonment of opposition, and written arguments cannot substitute for required eviden....
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....
The Rules framed by the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, prevail over the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
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
