Madras High Court
Dated: 04.09.2023 vs Assistant Registrar Of Trade ... on 4 September, 2023
2023:MHC:4010
(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023
(OA/1/2017/TM/CH)
M.S.Earthevents (I) Private Limited,
Promenade S2, 2nd Floor, 76/3,
Nandidurga Road, Jayamahal New Extension,
Bangalore - 560 046, Karnataka, India. ...Appellant
-vs-
Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks,
Intellectual Property Office,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
G.S.T.Road, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032. Tamil Nadu, India. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trademarks) filed under
Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying to order for removing the
subject Trade Mark and allow the appellant to renew the Trade Mark by
filing appropriate forms along with fees.
For Appellant : Mr.Amarjeet Kumar
for M/s.Khurana & Khurana
For Respondent : Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan,
Deputy Solicitor General
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023
JUDGMENT
The appellant assails the order removing Trade Mark No.1249884 in
Class 41 from the Register of Trade Marks.
2. The principal ground on which the appellant assails the order is
that the Registrar of Trade Marks did not issue notice to the registered
proprietor of the mark in accordance with Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999 read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002.
Specifically, the appellant asserts that it was incumbent on the Registrar of
Trade Marks to issue notice in Form O-3 before removing a mark from the
Register of Trade Marks. On account of non-compliance with such essential
condition, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In
support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this
Court in D.Baskaran V. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and another
(2019 SCC OnLine Mad 31016).
3. Upon obtaining instructions, Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned
Deputy Solicitor General, concurs with the contention of learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023
the appellant that the appellant was not put on notice by serving Form O-3
on the appellant.
4. In view of the above factual position, the impugned order is
unsustainable and is hereby set aside. As a corollary, the appellant is
permitted to take necessary steps for the renewal of Trade Mark
No.1249884. If an application for renewal is presented, the same shall be
dealt with in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the rules
framed thereunder.
5. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
04.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
rjr/hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
rjr/hvk
To
Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks,
Intellectual Property Office,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
G.S.T.Road, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
Tamil Nadu, India.
(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023
(OA/1/2017/TM/CH)
04.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
