The Registrar of Trade Marks cannot reject a renewal application based on delay if the mandatory notice (Form RG-3) was not served on the registered proprietor, provided the trade mark has not yet been removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

Class 35 by processing the Renewal Application dated 11.02.2025 along with

requisite fee submitted by the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Hemant Daswani

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi

Central Government Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter

No.TMR/CASH/2025/77 dated 14.02.2025 and for a consequential direction to

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 04:17:09 pm )

WP(IPD) No. 37 of 2025

the respondent to renew the trade mark registration No.1758382 in Class 35 by

processing the renewal application dated 11.02.2025 along with the requisite fee

submitted by the petitioner.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had originally applied for

registration of the trade mark “Bonie Collections” on 27.11.2008. This trade

mark was eventually registered only on 06.04.2023, after the opposition

proceedings were decided in favour of the petitioner. The specific case of the

petitioner is that the Registration Certificate and the Order dated 17.03.2023,

were never served on the petitioner nor was the mandatory renewal notice

issued on the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was unaware of the registration

status and had attempted renewal only upon becoming aware of the same in

January 2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after filing of the

renewal application along with requisite fee, the respondent has rejected the

request, on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ

petition has been filed before this Court.

3.When the writ petition came up for hearing on 22.01.2026, this Court

on hearing the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, passed the

following order:

“Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 04:17:09 pm )

WP(IPD) No. 37 of 2025

had submitted the application on 27.11.2008. Opposition was filed and

the same was rejected and the Registration Certificate was granted on

06.04.2023. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not received

the registration certificate and the time limit fixed under Rule 57 of the

Trade Mark Rules, 2017 , had expired. Hence, the respondent is not in a

position to renew the registration of the Trade Mark.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks some time to take

instructions.

Post this petition under the caption ‘for orders’ on 29.01.2026.”

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case in hand,

neither the Registration Certificate nor the Order dated 17.03.2023, was served

on the petitioner and the petitioner was kept in dark on the status of registration.

It was further submitted that admittedly, notice in form RG-3 has not been

issued to the petitioner. Hence, there is no justification on the part of the

respondent to reject the application submitted by the petitioner, on the ground of

delay.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his submissions, relied

upon the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.37 of 2025 dated

13.08.2024, the relevant portions are extracted herein:

“10. From the above discussion, the conclusions that follow are

that there is a statutory obligation on the Registrar of Trade Marks to

issue notice under sub-section (3) of Section 25 read with sub-rule (1) of

Rule 58 in case an application for renewal is not received in terms of

sub-section (2) of Section 25 read with subrule (1) of Rule 57 . Given the

right of a registered proprietor to renew the registration for blocks of 10

years at a time, the obvious object and purpose of the notice is to inform

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 04:17:09 pm )

WP(IPD) No. 37 of 2025

the registered proprietor that the time limit for expiry of the registration

is approaching and to take necessary action to renew the registration, if

so intended. Indeed, even after removal, sub-section (3) of Section 25

read with Rule 59 prescribes that the removal sho