Unilateral cancellation of a trademark registration without notice violates procedural fairness and natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 [for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] against the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 09.05.2025 and for a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to reinstate the registration of the appellant as granted under Certificate No.400179 dated 15.07.2005.

2.The appellant is a manufacturer of food products. In the course of business, the Trademark “SAKTHI” was adopted by the appellant. The food products included varieties of spice and masala powders, cereals, pickles, edible oil, flour and papad. The appellant was trading across India and the goods were also exported to foreign countries.

3.The appellant had adopted the mark “SAKTHI” in the year 1977 and it was used openly, continuously and extensively without any interruption.

4.With a view to obtain statutory protection for the said Trademark, the appellant applied for and obtained registration of the mark “SAKTHI” and it’s formatives under various Classes including Class 30 in India.

5.Apart from the above, the appellant also applied for Copyright of the unique style, distinctive colour scheme and getup of its label “SAKTHI” and obtained registrations under the Copyright Act, 1957.

6.The appellant filed an application for registration of its mark “SAKTHI” under Class 30 in respect of rice on 13.12.1999. The said application was accepted and after following the due process as mandated under the Act and Rules, the application was advertised in the Trademark Journal dated 16.10.2002 and thereafter registration was granted on 15.07.2005 vide Certificate No.400179 which was renewed from time to time.

7.On 06.02.2023, a public notice was issued by the Controller General of Patent, Design and Trademarks in Trademark Journal No.2090 dated 06.02.2023, wherein a list of applications were scheduled to be abandoned for failure to file counter statement in oppositions filed. In the said public notice, it was informed that an opportunity is provided for the applicants who are aggrieved on account of their application being incorrectly listed thereunder and they can bring the same to the attention/notice of Registrar of Trademarks by filing a correspondence with respect to the said grievance in the e-mail address provided, within 30 days of publication of the said public notice. To the shock and surprise of the appellant, the impugned application was also mentioned in the list. According to the appellant, based on the application, the Trademark had already been registered and therefore it ought not to have been made part of the list published by the Controller General.

8.The appellant immediately caused verification of the online records and came to know for the first time that the Certificate of Registration dated 15.07.2005 was unilaterally cancelled by the 1^st respondent without providing any opportunity to the appellant. The appellant also came to know that a notice of opposition was filed by the 2^nd respondent which was taken on record on 09.02.2018 after the advertisement of the impugned application.

9.The appellant made a representation dated 20.02.2023 to the 1^st respondent providing the entire facts and also the grievance of the appellant and the appellant prayed for restoration of the Trademark registration. A similar representation was also made on 27.02.2023.

10.The appellant came to know that the public notice dated 06.2.2023 and the subsequent public notice dated 27.3.2023 issued by the Controller General of Patent, Design and Trademarks was challenged before the Delhi High Court. During