Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Raj Vardhan Patodia (Huf) vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 5 August, 2024

                                    $~11
                                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    +        C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 4/2024, I.A. 905/2024-Addl.doc., I.A.
                                             906/2024-Stay

                                             RAJ VARDHAN PATODIA (HUF)                .....Appellant
                                                          Through: Mr. Kunal Vajani, Mr. Kunal
                                                                   Mimani, Mr. Anshuman Gupta,
                                                                   Mr. Prashant Alai and Mr. Aman
                                                                   Brar, Advocates.
                                                          versus

                                             REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR.         .....Respondents
                                                           Through: Mr. Manish Singhal, Advocate.
                                             CORAM:
                                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
                                                                                  ORDER

% 05.08.2024

1. By the present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the appellant seeks to impugn the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to the "impugned order").

2. The appellant herein is an HUF having registered office at 3A, Auckland Place, 10th Floor, Kolkata and is engaged in the business of planning, developing / constructing real estate projects.

3. The appellant, being a proprietor and user of the trade mark "SIGNUM GROUP" since 2012 applied for registration of the aforesaid trademark vide application no.2463465 in Class(s) 36 and 37 which proceeded for advertisement in the Trade Mark Journal No. 1677.

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 07/08/2024 at 00:14:59

4. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 also filed an application bearing no.3353987 seeking registration of the mark „ ‟ claiming use since 2016 in Class 36. The appellant filed an Opposition bearing no. 833081 to the said trademark application bearing no.3353987 of the respondent no.2, to which the respondent no.2 in turn filed its counter statement.

5. In furtherance thereto, the respondent no.1, vide its e-mail dated 11.02.2023 sent a copy thereof to the appellant. Though, the appellant vide its e-mail dated 23.03.2023 and vide its affidavit filed on the date of hearing before the respondent no.1 apprised the respondent no.1 that the appellant had been given the incorrect documents instead of the counter statement, the respondent no.1 in complete ignorance of the same instead proceeded to pass the impugned order whereby Opposition of the appellant bearing no. 833081 was deemed to be abandoned.

6. Hence, the present petition challenging the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, without proceeding to address his arguments, at the outset submits that since the respondent no.1 in its reply has admitted that the email containing copy of the counter statement of respondent no.2 was inadvertently not sent due to some technical glitch and the counter statement pertaining to the trademark application is not associated with the impugned mark of the respondent no.2.

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 07/08/2024 at 00:14:59

8. Accordingly, taking note of the above submission and without going into the merits of the dispute involved, this Court deems it proper and appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed in Opposition No.833081 filed by the appellant.

9. As such, the trademark application No.3353987 of the respondent no.2 is revived/restored to its original position.

10. In view thereof, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that respondent no.1 will initiate appropriate steps for serving the correct copy of the counter statement (TM 6) as filed by the respondent no.2 to the appellant herein, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of the trademark application no.3353987 and proceed in accordance with law thereafter.

11. Needless to say, the registration certificate no.3353987 dated 12.09.2023 issued by the respondent no.1 in favour of the respondent no.2 qua registration of its trademark application is also set aside.

12. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications is disposed of.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J AUGUST 5, 2024 mk C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 4/2024 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 07/08/2024 at 00:14:59