Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. He further contends that Section 64(1) of the GI Act enables the Registrar to grant extension of time for doing any act unless the time for such act is expressly provided in the Act. As regards the time limit for adducing evidence in support of the rectification application, learned counsel submits that the GI Act does not expressly specify a time limit. Since the Registrar granted the extension requested for by the appellant by fixing a date for hearing the rectification application, he submits that even an appeal by the respondents against such order is not maintainable.

14. As regards the contention that the issuance of a hearing notice should be construed as grant of extension, learned counsel pointed out that, even prior to the hearing notice, the contesting respondents had addressed communications dated 18.12.2018 and 03.01.2019 to the Registrar stating that the appellant herein failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 44(1) of the GI Rules and, therefore, the application ought to be deemed to be abandoned. The last contention of learned counsel was that Section 65 of the GI Act is only applicable to applications for registration of GI and not to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 09:04:53 pm ) applications for rectification. He also submitted that the said provision cannot be invoked in respect of matters expressly provided for in the GI Act or the GI Rules. Since the filing of evidence in support of a rectification application is expressly dealt with in the GI Rules, learned counsel submitted that Section 65 cannot be pressed into service. Discussion, Analysis and Conclusion:

17. On merits, I first propose to examine whether further extension of time was permissible under the GI Act and Rules. The appellant relied on Section 64(1) as the basis for seeking further extension. As is noticeable from the text of Section 64(1), it enables the Registrar to extend the time for doing any act for sufficient cause, if time for such act is not expressly provided in the statute. Rule 83 was framed pursuant to the rule making powers conferred by Section 87 of the GI Act. The said rule is as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 09:04:53 pm )

20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Section 65, which is titled 'abandonment'. He contended that the Registrar is empowered under this provision to issue notice and call upon an applicant to remedy the default in prosecution of the application under the GI Act, and to treat the application as abandoned if the default is not remedied within the time specified. In response to this contention, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that Section 65 only applies to an application for registration and not to a rectification application. Section 27 of the GI Act enables the filing of an application for rectification. As noticed above, Section 65 deals with defaults in prosecution of an application and there is nothing in the text or context of Section 65 that limits its applicability to applications for registration by excluding applications for rectification. Therefore, I conclude that Section 65 also applies to applications for rectification.