Delhi High Court - Orders
Kaira District Cooperative Milk ... vs Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors on 6 April, 2021
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9266/2020 with CM APPL. 29905/2020 & CM APPL.
2062/2021
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: with Mr. J. Amal Anand, Advocate
versus
REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan,
Advocate with Ms. S. Bushra,
Advocate and Mr. Aakaash
Meena, GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 06.04.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual mode].
CM APPL. 2062/2021 (for directions)
1. This application has been filed for a direction upon the respondent no.1 to withdraw the acceptance of the trademark bearing no. 3780783 for trademark "AMUL" and to revoke the advertisement/publication of the said trademark in the Trademark Journal.
2. The aforesaid trademark application has been filed by one Mr. Kuldeep Singh Gurudatta. The applicant is however not a party to the writ petition. Mr. J. Amal Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Registrar has a duty to consider the status of the petitioners' trademark as a well-known mark, in terms of the judgment of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:08.04.2021 16:31:42 W.P.(C) 9266/2020 page 1 of 3 this Court dated 03.03.2020 in W.P.(C) 11872/2005 [Jai Bhagwan Gupta vs. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.]. By the said judgment, this Court directed that prior to a mark proceeding for an advertisement, a specific brief order ought to be passed under Section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ["the Act"]. It was also held in the said judgment in case the mark is advertised, the petitioner's right to oppose the mark would still be available, and the opposition must be decided in accordance with law.
3. By an interim order dated 07.12.2020, this Court noted that for future applications coming up before the Registrar, the Registrar would bear in mind the directions contained in Jai Bhagwan Gupta (supra).
4. When the present application was filed, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had been informed by e-mail dated 18.01.2021, that the respondent no. 1 has withdrawn the acceptance of the mark bearing no. 3780783 for the trademark "AMUL". It appears from a reading of Sections 18 to 21 of the Act, and the judgment in Jai Bhagwan Gupta (supra), that the advertisement of the trademark should normally follow the acceptance thereof. If the respondent no.1 has indeed withdrawn the acceptance of trademark, a question arises as to whether the advertisement of the mark is of any effect at all.
5. Unfortunately, the respondent no.1 has not responded to the application despite being given an opportunity. Further, as mentioned hereinabove, the petitioners have not made the applicant for the trademark a party to the writ petition.
6. In these circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to take necessary steps to implead the applicant, if they are so advised. The petitioners are also at liberty to file an opposition to the registration of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:08.04.2021 16:31:42 W.P.(C) 9266/2020 page 2 of 3 trademark under Section 21(1) of the Act, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in this petition. The grounds taken in the present petition, to the extent they are available in opposition to registration, may also be taken by the petitioners therein.
7. The respondent no.1 is directed to file an affidavit in response to the application within two weeks from today in which it will categorically state as to whether the acceptance of the applicant's trademark has in fact been withdrawn, and the status of the advertisement thereof.
8. List on 24.05.2021.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 6, 2021
'j'/s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:08.04.2021
16:31:42 W.P.(C) 9266/2020 page 3 of 3