Bombay High Court
C2Sense, Inc vs Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks And Anr on 7 August, 2024
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2024:BHC-OS:11876
26-COMMP(L) 31297.2021.doc
Kavita S.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMM MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO.31297 OF 2021
C2Sense, Inc. ...Petitioner
Versus
Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Mumbai & ...Respondents
Anr.,
----------
Mr. Karan Khiani i/b Rashmi Singh for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vinit Jain a/w Ansari Shazia i/b Pranjal Sharma for the
Respondents.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA, J.
DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2024.
ORDER :
1. By this Commercial Miscellaneous Petition the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the Respondent's Order dated 3rd May, 2021 which holds that the applied mark is not registrable. KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV Digitally signed by KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV Date: 2024.08.07
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has 18:42:15 +0530 submitted that the impugned Order refers to Section 9(1) (a) and 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:22:54 ::: 26-COMMP(L) 31297.2021.doc 9(1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and holds that the mark applied for registration is objectionable under these provisions. However, no opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to make submissions on the objection under Section 9(1) (b) as this objection was never raised prior to the passing of the impugned Order. This is evident from the Notification of Provisional Refusal of Protection of an International Registration Designating India under Rule 17(1) of the Common Regulations issued by the Trade Marks Registry, where objection in relation to the applied mark was raised only under Section 9(1) (a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He has submitted that in view of the no opportunity being granted to the Petitioner to meet the objection under Section 91(1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the impugned order be set aside. He has further submitted that the impugned order is a non reasoned order as it fails to consider submissions of the Petitioner under Section 9(a) (a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent - Trade Marks has placed reliance upon the impugned Order and submitted that in view of the objections raised by the Respondent under Section 9(1) (a) and 9(1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act, which 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:22:54 ::: 26-COMMP(L) 31297.2021.doc was after perusal of documents on record and submission made, the finding was arrived at that the applied mark was not registerable due to these objections. Hence, the application of the Petitioner was not accepted.
4. Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that the impugned order fails to make reference to the submissions of the Petitioner and / or authorities relied upon. Thus, there is no consideration of the submissions and / or independent application of mind on the part of the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks other than by referring to Sections 9(1) (a) and 9(1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further, there is no opportunity given to the Petitioner to deal with the objection under Section 9(1) (b) of the Act as this objection was not raised in the aforementioned Notification of Provisional Refusal of Protection of an International Registration pertaining to the applied for mark. The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks has for the first time in the impugned order referred to the objection under Section 9(1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act. Accordingly, in my view, there has been non-conformity with the principal of natural justice and in view of which apart from the aforementioned findings, the impugned order requires to be set aside.
3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:22:54 :::
26-COMMP(L) 31297.2021.doc
5. In view thereof, the following order is passed :-
(i) The impugned order dated 3rd May, 2021 is set aside and remanded back to the Respondent for fresh consideration of the submissions and / or material relied upon by the Petitioner as well as giving the Petitioner an opportunity to deal with the objection under Section 9(1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and thereafter a reasoned order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of this Order.
6. The Commercial Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[R.I. CHAGLA, J.] 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 19:22:54 :::