Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
M/S ABHILASH INDUSTRIES – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12209 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN, SMT.LAYA GEORGE, SMT.MARIAM J. MANAVALAN
For the Respondents: SMT.ANJU DIVAKAR, CGC, SMT.SREELAKSHMI SURESH, CGC
Court directs expeditious disposal of trademark cancellation proceedings within six months to ensure timely justice.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to finalize a cancellation application under trademark law against the registration of a competing mark. Essential facts include the petitioner's prior trademark registration and the pending cancellation proceedings No.270766 against the third respondent's mark 'GEMPAC' (No.2413503) since 2021, alongside the third respondent's opposition against the petitioner's mark pending since 2022. The court found undue delay in processing, necessitating timely disposal to ensure justice. The court framed the issue as the protracted delay in rectification/cancellation proceedings. The ratio decidendi emphasizes the need for expeditious adjudication of trademark oppositions and cancellations, directing completion within six months post-hearing to uphold timely justice. The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Registrar of Trademarks to consider and pass orders on the cancellation application No.270766 within six months from receipt of the judgment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks direction to finalize trademark cancellation. (Para 1) |
| 2. directs expeditious disposal of proceedings within six months. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks for a direction to finalise the cancellation application bearing No.270766 initiated by the petitioner against the registration of Trademark GEMPAC with No.2413503 registered in the name of the 3rd respondent. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of, dispensing with notice to the 3rd respondent considering the nature of order that I propose to issue.
3. The opposition proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent against the trademark issued to the petitioner has been pending consideration from 2022. Almost four years have elapsed. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that direction is necessary to ensure that the parties are accorded timely justice.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on opposition proceedings No.270766 in respect of petitioner’s trademark, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
