Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Louis Vuitton Malletier vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 16 January, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                                    $~47
                                    *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    +           W.P.(C)-IPD 6/2024
                                                LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER                                                              ..... Petitioner
                                                                                      Through:                 Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun
                                                                                                               and Mr. Jaskarn Singh, Advocates.

                                                                                      versus

                                                THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR.                                               ..... Respondents
                                                                                      Through:                 Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
                                                                                                               CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra,
                                                                                                               Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday and
                                                                                                               Mr. Krishnan V., Advocates for R-1.

                                                CORAM:
                                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                                             ORDER

% 16.01.2024 CM 5/2024 (seeking exemption)

1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

3. Disposed of.

CM 6/2024(seeking exemption from filing apostilled power of attorney)

4. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

5. Disposed of.

W.P.(C)-IPD 6/2024

6. In terms of order dated 9th January, 2024, amended memo of parties is 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 25/01/2024 at 16:36:24 on record. Advance copy of the writ petition has been served on Respondent No. 2, and proof of service has been annexed with affidavit of service.

7. Despite advance service, there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear Mr. Urfee Roomi, counsel for Petitioner. Mr. Roomi points out that Petitioner had filed notice of opposition in respect of trademark application No. 5827664 for the mark " " in Class 20. The said notice of opposition, under Form TM-O, was prepared on 28th December, 2023. The same was uploaded and digitally signed on the said date. This is evidenced by Document No. 10, the screenshot of the IP India e-filing portal payments page, and Document No. 11, the copy of the aforenoted Form TM-O.

8. Mr. Roomi submits that after uploading the form, Petitioner attempted to deposit the requisite fee of INR 2,700/-. However, despite their multiple attempts, which continued till the Registry's portal closed at 11:00 PM, the payment could not go through as the e-payment gateway crashed. Thus, due to no fault of the Petitioner, the statutory fee could not be deposited in time. Accordingly, the instant petition prays for a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to accept the Petitioner's notice of opposition and to permit them to deposit the applicable fee.

9. Issue notice. Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

10. Mr. Mishra states that no counter affidavit is necessary. In light of the fact that payment could not be made due to technical reasons, he has instructions to state that Respondent No. 1, in the peculiar facts of the case, 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 25/01/2024 at 16:36:24 has no objection to allowing the Petitioner another opportunity to deposit the requisite fee belatedly.

11. Upon filing of process fee, issue notice to Respondent No. 2, by all permissible modes, returnable on the next date of hearing. On service, such Respondent shall file a counter affidavit within a period of 30 days from the date of service.

12. Re-notify on 08th February, 2024.

CM 4/2024(under Section 151 of CPC r/w Article 226 of Constitution of India)

13. For the facts and reasons noted above, the Court is satisfied that Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, Respondent No. 1 is directed to maintain status quo with respect to impugned trademark application No. 5827664.

14. Re-notify on 08th February, 2024.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 16, 2024 d.negi 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 25/01/2024 at 16:36:25