$~15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 8^th August, 2022

+

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Jasleen Kaur,

Ms. S. Meena, Ms. Yashi Agrawal &

Ms. Oshmi Jaishshreel, Advocates

(M-9811180270)

versus

DABUR INDIA LTD. & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Ms.

Akansha Singh & Mr. Vatsalya

Vishal, Advocates for R-1 (M-

9438804704)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 12673/2022 & I.A. 12674/2022 (for exemptions)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022 & I.A. 12672/2022 (for stay)

3. This is an appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

(hereinafter ‘Act’) challenging the order of the Trademark Registry dated

21^st July, 2022 dismissing opposition no.204995 of the Appellant/Opponent

(hereinafter ‘Opponent’) against trade mark application no.1309040 of

Respondent No.1/ Applicant (hereinafter ‘Applicant’)for the mark ‘Dabur

Glucorid KP (Label)’ in class 5. Vide the said order, the extension of time

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003060

sought by the Appellant for taking the evidence on record under Rule 50(3)

of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, (hereinafter ‘2002 Rules’), after delay in

service of evidence to the Applicant, was rejected and in effect the

opposition has been deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 50(2) of

2002 Rules.

4. In the opinion of the Court, the appeal raises an important question as

to the time limit within which evidence is to be filed in opposition

proceedings before the Trademark Registry. As per Section 21(1) of the Act,

the time limit for opposing a trademark which is advertised is clearly

prescribed as four months from the date of advertisement. As per Section

21(2) of the Act, upon the statement of opposition being served to the

Applicant, the counter-statement has to be filed within two months from the

receipt of the notice of opposition.

5. Section 21 of the Act contemplates filing of evidence by the

Opponent and the Applicant. However, time limits for filing of evidence are

not prescribed in the Act and the same are laid down in the Rules. Rule 45 of

the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (hereinafter ‘2017 Rules’), which are currently

in place, requires the Opponent to file evidence by way of affidavit within

two months from the service of the copy of the counter-statement. The

position under Rule 50 of the erstwhile 2002 Rules was that apart from the

two-month period, an extension of one month could be granted by the

Registrar if the same was sought under Form TM -56 in terms of Rule 50(3)

of the 2002 Rules. The corresponding provision in 2017 Rules, i.e., Rule 45,

however, has omitted the one-month extension period. As per Rule 46 of the

2017 Rules, evidence has to be adduced by the Applicant within two months

of the receipt of the evidence of the Opponent. Under Rule 47 of the 2017

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003060

Rules, within one month, the evidence in reply has to be filed by the

Opponent. Under Rule 48 of the 2017 Rules, further evidence can be

entertained if leave is sought by either of the parties. This is usually done, as

per the practice of Registrar of Trademarks, by filing of an Interlocutory

Petition (I.P.). The time period for filing pleadings and evidence in

opposition proceedings is therefore as under:

Notice of Opposition to Registration -Four months

[Section 21(1) of the Act]

Counter-statement- Two months

[Section 21(2) of the Act]

Evidence in support of Opposition - Two months

[Section 21(4) of the Act r/w Rule 45(1) of the 2017 Rules]

Evidence in support of Application- Two months

[Section 21(4) of the Act r/w Rule 46(1) of the 2017 Rules]

Evidenc