$~49

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 13^thMay, 2022

+

C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 101/2021

JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LIMITED

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Poonam Atey, Advocate

versus

THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, DELHI..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,

CGSC with Ms. S. Bushra Kazim,

Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr.

Sagar Mehlawat, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.

The present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order

dated 29^thMarch, 2016 passed by the Respondent - Registrar of Trade

Marks by which the Trademark Application No.2380329 of the Appellant

for the mark ‘

’ (JAGRAN) in Class 12, was abandoned on the ground

of non-prosecution due to non-filing of the reply to the examination report.

3.

The said Trademark Application for the mark ‘JAGRAN’ along with

the device was filed in class 12 on ‘proposed to be used’ basis by the

Appellant - Jagran Prakashan Limited on 16^thMarch, 2012. The goods in

respect of which the said application was filed were `Vehicles, apparatus for

locomotion by land, air and water’. The said application was examined and

the First Examination Report (“FER”) was issued on 31st July, 2013.

4.

The same was communicated to M/s. Romesh Chadha & Co., the

trademark agent of the Appellant. However, the Appellant did not file a

2022:DHC:1882

reply to the said FER. Vide impugned order dated 29th March, 2016, the

trade mark was abandoned with the following reasoning:

“ORDER

Trade Marks Registry.”

5.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the present appeal was

filed before the IPAB sometime in August, 2020. However, the same has

been transferred to this Court due to the enactment of the Tribunals Reforms

Act, 2021.

6.

The case of the Appellant is that the Appellant owns several

trademarks,

including

‘DAINIK

JAGRAN’,

‘JAGRAN’,

‘JAGRAN’

devices, etc. in various classes, and is also seeking protection of the mark

2022:DHC:1882

‘JAGRAN’ as a well-known trademark itself. It is submitted that the Appellant

ought not to be prejudiced due to the fault of the trademark agent, who did not

inform the Appellant.

7.

It is noticed that the FER cites two other trademarks in Class 12 for the

mark ‘JAGRAON EXPORTS (INDIA)’ and ‘JAGRAON JE’. The said FER

ought to have been replied to by the Applicant/Appellant, within the time

prescribed in accordance with law.

8.

In the opinion of this Court, the Appellant has approached this Court

very belatedly. The impugned order dated 29^thMarch, 2016 was also passed

almost three years after the issuance of the FER. Thus, the delay in filing the

reply to the FER, as also, in filing of the present appeal is too long to be

condoned. Hence, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the

present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed on the ground of being

barred due to long delay.

9.

Since the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay, it is made

clear that the present order shall not prejudice the Appellant’s rights in the

mark ‘JAGRAN’ as the Appellant already has various registrations qua the

mark ‘JAGRAN’, its logo, and variants thereof. Further, the Appellant would

be free to file a fresh application for the registration of the impugned mark in

Class 12. The same shall be considered by the Respondent, without being

prejudiced by the observations made in the present order.

10.

With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of. All pending

applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

MAY 13, 2022/dk/ad

2022:DHC:1882