Delhi High Court - Orders
Kaira District Cooperative Milk ... vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 11 August, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 46/2025 & I.A. 19417/2025
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION
LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishal Nagpal, Mr. Debjyoti
Sarkar, Ms. S. Majumdar and Mr.
Balkrishan Singh, Advocates
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.
Om Ram, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, Mr.
Shivang Bansal, Mr. Shivendra Pratap
Singh, Ms. Namrata Jain and Ms.
Yashita Gupta, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 11.08.2025 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 46/2025 and I.A. 19417/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 impugning the order dated 24.04.2025 which dismissed Appellant's opposition (Opposition No. 1298974) to Respondent No.2's trademark application (No. 4674348) for the mark 'DOODH'.
2. The Appellant is a cooperative society registered in Gujarat and is known for its trademark 'AMUL'.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant was served with Respondent No. 2's counter statement via e-mail dated 15.09.2024.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 46/2025 Page 1 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 22:08:37 3.1 He states that the Appellant sent evidence in support of its Opposition under Rule 45(1) of the Trademark Rules, 2017 to Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2's trademark agent via speed post, which was duly delivered to Respondent No. 2's trademark agent on 13.11.2024 via speed post and to Respondent No. 1 on 14.11.2024 via speed post. 3.2 He states that the evidence filed by Appellant was also available on the website of Respondent No. 1.
3.3 He states that in these facts, the order dated 24.04.2025 has been passed on incorrect appreciation of facts.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 confirms that appellant's evidence was received on 13.11.2024.
4.1 He also confirms that Respondent No. 2 filed evidence in support of its application under Rule 46(1) on 07.01.2025. 4.2 He confirms that he did not raise any objection, with respect to Appellant's evidence in support of its opposition being time barred. 4.3 He states that as per the correspondence Section on the website of Respondent No. 1, the date of dispatch of the letter dated 11.09.2024 is mentioned as 11.09.2024.
4.4 He also refers to the hearing notice dated 05.03.2025, which states that letter dated 11.09.2024 was served.
4.5 He submits that Respondent No. 2 reasonably believes that the letter dated 11.09.2024 was served on the Petitioner on 11.09.2024. 4.6 He states, however, he does not have either any e-mail or proof of service evidencing the service on 11.09.2024.
4.7 He seeks one (1) weeks' time to file the reply after verifying the record of the Registry to submit the mode and manner of service of letter C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 46/2025 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 22:08:37 dated 11.09.2024 on the Petitioner.
5. In view of the e-mail dated 15.09.2024 placed on record, the Appellant has made out a prima facie case that it was served with Respondent No. 2's counter statement on 15.09.2024.
6. Issue notice. Learned counsels for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 accepts notice.
7. Respondent No. 2 is directed to file its short reply placing on record affidavit and documents disclosing the date of dispatch and service of Respondent No. 2's counter on the Petitioner within two (2) weeks. The reply will deal with the e-mail dated 15.09.2024.
8. Respondent No. 1 shall file a reply within two (2) weeks.
9. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.
10. In case, the Registrar disputes the e-mail dated 15.09.2024, filed by the Petitioner, the Registrar is directed to join the proceedings through video conferencing on the next date of hearing.
11. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 states, on instructions from Respondent No. 2, that in the meantime Respondent No. 2 will not rely upon the registration number 4674348 dated 24.04.2025 against the Appellant in any manner. The said statement is taken on record and Respondent No. 2 is bound down to the same.
12. List on 19.09.2025.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 11, 2025/rhc/AM C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 46/2025 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 22:08:37