Supreme Court Questions Mandatory Nature of Trademark Evidence Deadline in Black Diamond Motors Case

The Supreme Court on 24 August issued notice on a petition filed by Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd., challenging a Bombay High Court judgment that ruled the two-month deadline for filing evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is directory and not mandatory.

A Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ordered the notice " returnable after four weeks " and directed that "in the meantime, the proceedings of rectification shall remain stayed." The Court also permitted dasti service .

The Core Dispute

The case arises from trademark rectification proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Black Diamond Motors contested the Registrar's decision to accept an evidence affidavit despite a substantial delay in filing. The company argued that Rule 45, which prescribes a strict two-month period for submitting evidence, must be treated as a mandatory deadline, and that failure to comply should result in automatic dismissal of the rectification proceedings.

Bombay High Court's Reasoning

In its judgment dated 17 June 2026, a single-judge Bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, held that Rule 45 is part of a broader procedural framework governing opposition and rectification proceedings. The court observed that Rules 45 to 48 operate together, with Rule 47 allowing for additional evidence and Rule 48 vesting discretion in the Registrar to permit further evidence. Treating the Rule 45 deadline as mandatory, the court reasoned, would be inconsistent with this overall scheme.

The Bombay High Court also rejected the argument that failure to file evidence within two months automatically extinguishes the underlying opposition or rectification proceedings. It held that the deeming provision under Rule 45(2) could not be used to defeat substantive rights available under Sections 21 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The petitioner, represented by Advocate-on-Record Padmesh Mishra and advocates Vastvikta Bhardwaj and Vijant, argued that the Bombay High Court's interpretation undermines the certainty and predictability required in trademark proceedings. They contended that treating the deadline as directory would encourage delays and prejudice parties who comply with the rules.

The respondents have been given four weeks to file their response. The Supreme Court has stayed the rectification proceedings in the meantime, indicating that it will examine the legal question more closely.

Key Observations

While the Supreme Court did not deliver a final judgment, its decision to issue notice and stay proceedings suggests that it considers the question of whether Rule 45 is mandatory or directory to be of sufficient importance for judicial scrutiny. The matter will now be heard after the respondents file their reply.

The outcome could have significant implications for trademark opposition and rectification proceedings across India, as it will determine the degree of flexibility available to the Registrar in accepting delayed evidence.

Implications

The case highlights a critical tension in procedural law: the need for certainty and finality versus the need for flexibility to ensure that substantive rights are not defeated by technical rules. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will clarify the scope of the Registrar's discretion and the consequences of non-compliance with prescribed deadlines under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.