##PAGE1##

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: 28.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010993742025 + W.P.(C)-IPD 63/2025 PARVEEN KUMAR GULATI TRADING AS APEXSEALS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Priyanshi Gupta, Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Sakshmit Mathur and Mr. Parth Dabas, Advs.

versus REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr.

Kautilya Birat, Mr. Sanskar Gupta and Mr. Tushar Hazrati, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned removal of the Petitioner's registered trade mark "APEXSEALS" bearing Application No. 746049 from the Register of Trade Marks;

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,orderordirection,directingtheRespondenttoforthwith restore the Petitioner's said trade mark on the Register of Trade Marks with continuity of rights;

c) Direct the Respondent to permit the Petitioner to file renewal upon payment of requisite fee”

2. The case set out by the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner had applied for the registration of the trademark “APEXSEALS” with the respondent/Registrar of Trademark, under Class 17 vide application no.

746049 on 24.12.1996, claiming user since 02.03.1993.

3. It is stated that the said application remained pending for several years, and was ultimately advertised in the trademark journal no. 1339 dated 01.02.2006. Consequently, the mark was registered and a certificate of registration bearing no. 604418 was issued to the petitioner on 10.02.2007 i.e. after the expiry of the initial statutory period of ten years from the date of application, in which the renewal has to be done.

4. It is further contended that after a change in the management and control of the petitioner’s business, an internal audit revealed the aforesaid registration of the petitioner’s trademark “APEXSEALS” has been removed from the trademark register of respondent on the basis of non-renewal of the registration. 5. Mr. Kunal Khanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the validity of the registration of petitioner’s trademark was till 24.12.2006 i.e. for a period of ten years reckoned from the date of making of the application for registration of trademark i.e. 24.12.1996, whereas the actual certificateforregistrationofthetrademarkwasissuedtohimonlyon10.02.2007, meaning thereby that prior to the issuance of certificate of registration, the validity of the trademark had expired.

6. He submits that aggrieved by the action of respondent, on 24.04.2025, the petitioner through its trade mark attorney, filed Form TM-M seeking a certified copy of the Notice of expiration of last registration (Form O-3), 1AftertheTradeMarkRules,2017cameintoeffect,the“FormO-3”Noticewasreplacedbythe“FormRG- and proof of dispatch thereof.

7. In response, the respondent issued only a “legal use certificate” dated 19.05.2025, confirming removal of the trademark but failed to provide the requested copies of the Form O-3 notice or proof of service.

8. Consequently, the petitioner filed an RTI application no. CGPDT/R/E/25/00705 seeking details as to the issuance of the FormO-3 notice. A reply was received to the said RTI application on 15.09.2025, wherein it was mentioned that since the mark was registered after the expiry of it’s validity period, the issuance of an O-3 notice is not applicable. The response dated 15.09.2025 to the said RTI application has been set out hereinbelow for the ease of reference:

“With reference to your RTI application dated 18/08/2025, seeking information regarding the status of the trademark application No. 746049, the point-wise reply is as under:

As per the records, the subject application was originally filed on 24/12/1996 and wa