Delhi High Court - Orders
Raj Vardhan Patodia (Huf) vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 13 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 11/2024
RAJ VARDHAN PATODIA (HUF) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kunal Vajani, Mr. Kunal
Mimani, Mr. Kartikey Bhatt,
Mr. Anshuman Gupta and
Mr. Prashant Alai, Advocates.
versus
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.
Mr. Manish Singhal, Mr. Kunal
Khanna, Mr. Swastik Bisarya and
Ms. Vridhi Pasricha, Advocates for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 13.02.2024 I.A. 3493/2024 (seeking exemption from filing certified copy)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 3494/2024 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
4. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under 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 14/02/2024 at 22:40:32 the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. Applicant, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the said Act.
6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 11/2024, I.A. 3373/2024 (for stay)
7. The instant appeal under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 ("Act") is directed against order dated 3rd November, 2023 ("Impugned order"), whereby Respondent No. 1 has dismissed Appellant's TM opposition as abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trademark Rules, 2017.
8. It is the contention of the Appellant that they were served a notice of opposition of another case instead of the counter-statement by Respondent No. 1 on 13th February, 2023. Despite the Appellant intimating Respondent No. 1 through email communication dated 21st March, 2023, the counter- affidavit was not provided, and yet, Respondent No. 1 treated the opposition as abandoned through the Impugned Order. In fact, it is also contended that prior to the hearing held by Respondent No. 1, the Appellant had submitted an affidavit on 20th October, 2023 narrating the facts mentioned above, and yet, without considering the email, affidavit, or the oral submissions, the opposition was deemed to be abandoned.
9. Issue notice. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, counsel accepts notice on behalf Respondent No. 1. Mr. Manish Singhal, counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Signatureglobal (India) Private Limited).
10. The replies/ counter statements be filed within three weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
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 14/02/2024 at 22:40:32
11. List on 22nd April, 2024.
SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 13, 2024 nk 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 14/02/2024 at 22:40:33