The court held that actions taken by the appellant in seeking extensions prevent the characterization of a rectification application as abandoned under Rule 44(2), affirming the necessity of due process in rectification proceedings.

ORDER :

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

Background

This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2019 allowing interlocutory petition No.1 of 2019, which was filed by the first and second respondents herein (the contesting respondents).

2. By such interlocutory petition, the contesting respondents requested the Registrar of Geographical Indications to treat the rectification application of the applicant as abandoned under Rule 44(2) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules 2002 ('GI Rules').

3. The contesting respondents submitted an application for registration of GI on 18.09.2015. Such application was advertised in the GI Journal on 14.07.2019 and registration was granted on 14.11.2017. The appellant herein applied for rectification of the entry relating to such registration on 13.02.2018 under Section 27 of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 ('GI Act'). In response to such rectification application, the respondents herein filed a counter statement on 13.06.2018, and such counter statement was received by the appellant on 16.06.2018. By virtue of Rule 66 of the GI Rules, Rules 44 to 51 which deal with opposition proceedings, are made applicable mutatis mutandis to rectification proceedings. Consequently, the applicant was required to adduce evidence within two months from the receipt of a copy of the counter statement or inform the Registrar and the counter party in writing that he does not desire to adduce evidence in support of the rectification application but intends to rely on the facts stated in the rectification application.

4. In the case at hand, the appellant applied for extension, in the first instance, on 13.08.2018, and, thereafter, requested for a second extension by application dated 11.09.2018. Evidence in support of the rectification was lodged with the Registrar subsequently on 29.10.2018. The interlocutory application requesting that the rectification application be deemed abandoned was filed in the above facts and circumstances and such application was allowed by the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

Counsel and their contentions:

5. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the key dates and events, as narrated above, and contended that the appellant had taken action within the time limit specified under Rule 44(1) of the GI Act and that the request for extension was acceded to. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to hearing notice dated 26.07.2019 fixing the hearing of the rectification application on 06.09.2019. He further submits that the interlocutory application was filed thereafter on 03.08.2019. Therefore, learned counsel submits that it cannot be said that the appellant abandoned the rectification application in terms of Rule 44(2) of the GI Rules.

6. His next contention is that the GI Act makes a distinction between abandonment of proceedings at the instance of the Registrar and deemed abandonment by the applicant or opponent concerned. By drawing reference to Section 14(2) and Rule 44(2), learned counsel submits that the said provisions provide for deemed abandonment of the application or opposition, as the case may be, by the party, but not an abandonment of the proceedings. By contrast, by reference to Section 16(3) and Section 57(3), he points out that these provisions enable the Registrar to treat the application as abandoned after providing notice to the party concerned.

7. He further contends that Section 64 (1) of the GI Act enables the Registrar to grant extension of time for doing any act unless the t