##PAGE1##

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010292162026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026, I.A. 17522/2026 & I.A. 17523/2026 M/S KUMAR EQUIPMENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Senior Advocate with Mr.UtkarshGupta,Mr.Sanidhya Sharma and Ms. Sanandika, Advocates.

versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Barathi, SPC, Ms. Khushi Nagrath, Ms. Manvi Goyal and Mr. Debashish Mishra, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Ajay Sahni and Mr. Mohit Maru, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)

INTRODUCTION

1. The present Appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) read with Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) has been preferred against the order dated 18.05.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No. 1 - the learned Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby the review petition dated 25.12.2025 (“Review Petition”) filed by Respondent No. 2 - KEI Industries Limited, under Section 127(c) of the Act was allowed and the order dated 16.10.2025 (“Abandonment Order”) was set aside. By the Abandonment Order, Opposition No. 1294426 (“Opposition”) filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellant’s Trade Mark Application No. 5038776 (“Subject Application”) for the mark ‘KEI-

KUMAREQUIPMENTINDIA’(“Appellant’s Mark”)in Class11hadbeen treated as abandoned under Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 45(2) of the Rules.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. On 10.07.2021, the Appellant filed the Subject Application for the registration of the Appellant’s Mark for the goods pertaining to ‘electric cooking utensils’ in Class 11. Respondent No. 1 issued an Examination Report dated 19.07.2021, and the Subject Application was thereafter advertised.

3. On 29.03.2024, Respondent No. 2 filed the Opposition, alleging that the Appellant’s Mark is deceptively similar to its registered mark ‘KEI’ (“Respondent No. 2’s Mark”). The Appellant received the notice of opposition on 08.04.2024 and filed its counter statement on 16.04.2024 (“Counter Statement”).

4. AspertherecordofRespondentNo.1,acopyoftheCounterStatement was dispatched on 26.04.2024 to Mr. Pallav Palit of Palit & Co., the attorney on record for Respondent No. 2, as well as to Respondent No. 2 at its address atOkhlaIndustrialArea,PhaseI,NewDelhi.Theperiodoftwomonthsunder Rule 45(1) of the Rules for Respondent No. 2 to file evidence in support of the Opposition expired on 26.06.2024. Respondent No. 2 did not file any evidence or any intimation of reliance on the facts stated in the notice of opposition within that period.

5. Respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a hearing notice dated 25.08.2025, addressed to the attorney on record for Respondent No. 2 as well as to Respondent No. 2, fixing the matter for hearing. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 16.10.2025, Respondent No. 2 did not appear. By the Abandonment Order, Respondent No. 1 held that, as neither any evidence in support of the Opposition nor any statement of reliance on the facts stated in the notice of opposition had been filed within the prescribed time, the Opposition was deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Rules, and directed that the Subject Application shall proceed further as per the Rules. The Certificate of Registration was issued to the Appellant on the samedate.CopiesoftheAbandonmentOrderweredispatchedon25.11.2025, including to the attorney on record for Respondent No. 2 and to Respondent No. 2.

6. Respondent No. 2, through its new attorney, filed the Review Petition seekingrecalloftheAbandonmentOrder.IntheReviewPetition,Respondent No. 2 contended that neither the Counter Statement nor any hearing notice had been received by Respondent No. 2 or its previous attorney, Mr. Pallav Palit, and stated that an affidavit sworn by Mr. Pallav Palit affirming such non-receipt was being filed along with the Review Petition. The Affidavit dated 19.01.2026 of Mr. Saga