M/S ABHILASH INDUSTRIES vs UNION OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27650

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27650

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. 12391 OF 2026

Important Points

Court directs expeditious disposal of delayed trademark opposition proceedings within six months for timely justice.

Subject

Civil - Intellectual Property

Act Referred

Trade Marks Act, 1999

Headnote

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to finalise opposition proceedings against trademark registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Essential facts include the filing of TM-A application, issuance of examination report, publication in Trademark Journal, and notice of opposition by the third respondent, with counter-statement filed by petitioner. The court found undue delay of nearly four years in proceedings, necessitating timely justice. The primary issue was the prolonged pendency of opposition proceedings No.1231728 concerning trademark GEMPAC No.5453724. The court's ratio decidendi emphasized directing expeditious disposal to ensure parties receive timely justice, after hearing counsel. The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to consider and pass orders on the opposition within six months from receipt of judgment, after hearing all parties.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN, SMT.LAYA GEORGE, SMT.MARIAM J. MANAVALAN
For the Respondents: SMT.SREELAKSHMI SURESH, CGC

Table of Content
1. petition seeks finalisation of trademark opposition. (Para 1)
2. direct expeditious disposal within six months. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks for a direction to finalise the opposition proceedings bearing No.1231728 initiated by the 3^rd respondent against the registration of Trademark GEMPAC with No.5453724.

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 3^rd respondent considering the nature of order that I propose to issue.

3. The opposition proceedings initiated by the 3^rd 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 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on opposition proceedings No.1231728 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.