Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. ... vs Religious Technology Centre
2001 Latest Caselaw 137 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. Due to non-filing of the evidence by the petitioner its application opposing the registration of the trade mark was dismissed by the Court after holding that the provisions of Rule 53 of the rules framed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act was mandatory and due to the evidence have not been filed within the prescribed period, the opposition would be automatically deemed to have been abandoned.

2. A Full Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Hasti Lal v. Registrar of Trade Marks, has held that Rule 53(2) is merely directory and not mandatory and that under Clauses (b) & (c) of Rule 53(2), the Registrar has the power to extend time for filing evidence even though the period mentioned in Rule 53 or the extended period thereof has expired and even though an application for extension of time was made beyond that period. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full bench of this Court, the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for decision in accordance with the observations of this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the Registrar, Trade Marks on 19th March, 2001.

CM 360/95:

3. Since the petition has been disposed of, this application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

Petition disposed of.

4. Application dismissed as infructuous.