W.P. (C)-IPD 37/2021 Page 1 of 18

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P. (C)-IPD 37/2021 & C.M. 5660/2009

SUDHIR BHATIA TRADING AS V. BHATIA

INTERNATIONAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Zeba Khan

and Ms. Muskaan Arora, Advocates.

versus

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS ...... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Harish V. Shankar, Central

Government Standing Counsel with Ms. S. Bushra

Kazim and Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Advocates

for UOI/R-1 & R-2.

Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Sanjay Dua, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1.

By way of present writ petition, Petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari

quashing the advertisement with respect to application No.731808, in

Class 5, filed by Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd./Respondent No.3

herein for registration of trademark LAXMAN REKHA (label) and a

further direction to the concerned Registrar of Trade Marks to

re-advertise the application.

2.

Factual narrative to the extent necessary and relevant for the present

writ petition is that Respondent No.3 filed an application on 29.01.1997, for

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001973

W.P. (C)-IPD 37/2021 Page 2 of 18

registration of trademark LAXMAN REKHA (label). Respondent No.3 also

filed a suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off,

delivery etc. against the Petitioner herein, in respect of trademark LAXMAN

REKHA. Learned Single Judge of this Court granted injunction against the

Petitioner vide order dated 31.07.2001. In an Appeal before the Division

Bench, the injunction order was vacated vide order dated 20.09.2001,

however, in Civil Appeal No. 107/2002, the Supreme Court, vide order

dated 22.01.2004, set aside the order of the Division Bench and restored the

order granting injunction. The suit was transferred to the District Courts on

account of pecuniary jurisdiction.

3.

Before the learned Trial Court, Respondent No.3 preferred an

application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in the year 2006, seeking

amendment of the plaint and along with the application filed copy of th e

registration certificate, whereby Respondent No.3’s trademark/label

LAXMAN REKHA was registered in Class 5.

4.

It is averred in the writ petition that from the Registration Certificate,

Petitioner learnt that the application for registration was advertised in Trade

Marks Journal MEGA-1 on 25.08.2003. Petitioner thereafter contacted its

lawyers, who on inquiry found that the trademark (label) of Respondent

No.3 was advertised, but was totally black and illegible. Petitioner then

approached the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Registrar’) vide letter dated 09.02.2004 and requested him to

re-advertise the mark, on the ground that the mark advertised on page 618,

was not clearly visible and also enclosed photocopy of the relevant page for

ready reference. This was followed by reminder letters dated 01.11.2006,

24.11.2006, 26.11.2006, 25.01.2007 etc., whereby Petitioner requested the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001973

W.P. (C)-IPD 37/2021 Page 3 of 18

Registrar to take action under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), more so, in larger public interest.

Finally, a legal notice dated 10.06.2008 was sent to Respondent No.2

seeking redressal of the grievance relating to the illegible advertisement.

Receiving no response, Petitioner approached this Court by way of the

present writ petition.

5.

On 13.08.2008, not