Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai – Respondent
C.M.A. (TM) No. 29 of 2025, C.M.P. No. 31487 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026
For the Appellant : Jose John,
For the Respondents: G. Mutharasu, K.M. Anand
Proof of actual receipt of an opposition notice is necessary to avoid deeming a trademark application as abandoned under the Trade Marks Act.
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 21(2) - Appeal against rejection of trademark application as abandoned due to absence of notice of opposition - Service of notice by email considered - Proof of actual receipt of notice critical for determining abandonment - Court quashed impugned order and restored application for reconsideration. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
(B) Notice of Opposition - Legal implications of deemed service via email discussed - Need for proof of receipt emphasized to protect substantive rights of trademark applicants. (Paras 6, 7)
(C) Importance of technical solutions for proof of email receipt highlighted to avoid future litigation. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellant's trademark application was deemed abandoned due to alleged non-filing of counter-statement post-notice of opposition, which the appellant claimed was not received. The Registrar produced evidence of email dispatch, leading to the legal question regarding deemed service.
Findings of Court:
The lack of proof showing actual receipt of notice was critical. Application restored for reconsideration, with opportunity granted to respond to the opposition within 30 days.
Issues: Whether proper service of notice occurred to warrant abandonment under Section 21(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Court concluded that the time limit for filing counter statements should run from actual receipt of the opposition notice, emphasizing the need for clear proof of receipt to ensure fairness to applicants.
Result: Appeal allowed; application restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against rejection of trademark application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on service of notice and email transmission. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of legal provisions for service of notice. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. When this appeal came up for hearing on 29.01.2026, this Court after hearing both sides passed the following order:-
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20.12.2024 rejecting the application filed by the appellant as deemed to have been abandoned by operation of Section 21 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant company was not served with the notice of opposition filed by the 3rd respondent. In view of the same, there was no occasion for the appellant to file their response for the notice of opposition. In such a scenario, the 2nd respondent came to an erroneous conclusion that the application submitted by the appellant is deemed to have been abandoned.
3. To substantiate the fact that the appellant did not receive the notice of opposition, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the extract of the copy of the e-mail inbox of the appellant’s agent available at Page No.54 of the Paper book.
4. Per contra, the learned Central Government Standing counsel during the last hearing held on 22.01.2026 filed typed set of papers containing the copy of the opposition notice and also the dispatch and mail sent by the Trade Mark Registry, Chennai, where it is mentioned that insofar Application No.5547423 is concerned, the opposition notice was despatched to the email id of the appellant on 24.06.2024 and it was also successfully received by the appellant.
5. The appellant has taken a very specific stand that the notice of opposition was not served and even in Paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the appeal, the appellant has taken a very specific stand in this regard.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court the judgement in [Ramya S Moorthy Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and another, 2023 SCC OnLine Madras 5305] and the relevant portions in the judgement are extracted hereunder:-
3. Mr.S.Janarthanam, learned Special Panel Counsel, relies on Rules 17 and 18 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and contends that notice may be served through e-mail to the address provided by the applicant, and that service of notice by e-mail is deemed to be proper service upon dispatching the e-mail. By drawing reference to the document evidencing dispatch of the opposition notice to the applicant / petitioner on 19.01.2023, he points out that the status specified therein is “success”.
4. The case turns on Section 21 (2), which is set out below: “(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 opposition, the applicant shall send to the Registrar in the prescribed manner a counter- statement of the grounds on which he relies for his application, and if he does not do so he shall be deemed to have abandoned his application.”
5. Rules 17 and 18 deal with the address for service and service of notice, respectively, and Rule 18(2), which is of particular relevance, is set out below:
“(2) Any communication or document so sent shall be deemed to have been served, at the time when the letter containing the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post or at the time of sending the e-mail.”
6. Rule 18(2) incorporates a legal fiction with regard to service of notice by post and e-mail. As regards service of notice by e-mail, it provides that notice would be deemed to be served “at the time of sending the e-mail”. If construed literally, this would mean no more than proof of transmission of the e-mail. Especially in the context of the non-incorporation of the provision for dee
