$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 11/2026 & I.A. 4229/2026 (Stay)

SHREE UMIYA SURGICAL PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Abhiraj Jayant, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Mr. Nilesh Nayak and Mr. Zahid Shaikh, Advocates.

versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Barathi, SPC alongwith Mr.

Debasish Mishra, G.P. for Registrar of Trade Marks/R-1.

Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Mr. Amit Jain, Ms. Deeksha Gulati and Mr. Bhavesh, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 16.02.2026 I.A. 4230/2026 (Delay)

1. This is an application under Section 151 of CPC and Section 91(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and delay of 64 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 4231/2026 (Exemption from filing certified copies)

4. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) filed on behalf of appellant seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the documents.

5. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The certified copies of the documents be filed within two weeks with an advance copy to the defendants.

6. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 4232/2026 (Exemption from filing clear and legible copies)

7. This is an application under Section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of the appellant seeking exemption from filing clear and legible copies of the documents.

8. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The clear and legible copies of the documents be filed within two weeks with an advance copy to the defendant.

9. The application stands disposed of.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 11/2026

10. The present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 read with Rule 156 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017, challenging the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks/respondent no.1 in Opposition No.1264964.

11. The grievance of the appellant arises from the fact that the respondent no.1 has asserted, vide e-mail dated 22.04.2024, that the counter statement of M/s Mediplus (India) Limited/respondent no.2 was shown as served upon the appellant on the online status of the trademark application. It is the assertion of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no such e-mail or counter statement was ever served upon the attorney of the appellant. In support thereof, learned counsel invites attention to the document, which according to him, is a complete record of the e-mails sent by the Trade Marks Registry from

06.04.2024 upto 30.04.2024, commencing from page 129 of the appeal.

12. He also asserts that the appellant, through its attorney, had filed an affidavit on 26.08.2025 clearly stating that the counter statement was never served upon the appellant or the agent on 22.04.2024. It is on account of non-service of the counter statement that the evidence in opposition could not be filed. He invites attention to the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 to submit that it is absolutely bereft of any reference to the affidavit dated 26.04.2025 filed by the appellant whereby the attention of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to the fact of non-service of the counter statement on 22.04.2024 was drawn. He submits that there is no reference to the said affidavit at all.

13. That apart, he also further submits that a review petition against the said impugned order passed by the Assistant Registrar, was filed on 22.09.2025, which is within 30 days of the time stipulated in Rule 119 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “TM Rules”). He submits that the review petition was, in fact, served upon the Trade Marks Registry on 22.09.2025 and surprisingly, on 23.09.2025, the respondent no.1 i.e. the Assistant Registrar issued the impugned registration certificate in favour of