Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The opponent filed two requests on Form TM-56 for extension of two months time. The first request was allowed and an extension of one month time was granted from 22.10.2003 to 21.11.2003, whereas the second was refused vide official letter dated 4.12.2003. Mr. Rethnam contended that Interlocutory petition was filed on 22.12.2003 within a marginal time after expiry of the extended time. He drew the attention of this tribunal to all the grounds one after another. He referred to para 3 of Interlocutory petition and submitted that the opponents had been collecting necessary documents and information from various sources including collection of relevant material from their office worldwide including India and the process of enquiry, correspondence and collection and sorting of the relevant evidence consumed considerable time. Mr. Rethnam submitted that the process was further delayed for the reason that coordinating officer at the opponent's office was frequently kept changing. He stated that for last two months due to computer virus, the computer hard disc of the opponents attorney was crashed, which resulted into complete loss of data; and this necessitated redrafting of affidavit. The Ld. Advocate contended that since the new trade mark came in force abruptly, it took the opponent's much time to come to terms with the practice and procedure therein, hence, delayed in filing of evidence. He vehemently argued that the evidence filed by way of IP is a quality evidence coupled with reasons pleaded above and there has been no lack of diligence on the part of the opponent; the evidence filed by way of Interlocutory Petition is vital and extremely relevant to these proceedings in all fairness and can be taken on record in exercise of discretion of this tribunal under Section 131 of the Act. He prayed that affidavit of Mr. Allen Norris filed alongwith exhibits be taken on record either under Rule 50(1) or 53 in the interest of natural justice, especially, when the applicant has not filed evidence under Rule 51; it will not prejudice to the applicant's right, as the mark sought to be registered is "proposed to be used". He relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.M.(M) 525/1994, C.M. (M) 137/1994, & CO 8/1992, (2000 PTC 24(FB).

I am cautious with the proposition that the evidence should not be shut down. But, at the same time in the circumstances, when the provision of Rule 50(2) are made mandatory with an absolute legal fiction, and Rule 50(1) has mandate of Section 21(4) in accordance with Section 2(1)(S) as stated above, the opponent should not be allowed to file his evidence at his sweet will at any point of time in violation law. However, in the today's time of electronic media and means of super fast communication, the prescribed time of two months with a further time of one month in aggregate as prescribed in Rule 50(1) is more than sufficient for a vigilant opponent to file evidence in support of opposition. In email'/fax system, a huge messages, information, material or evidence comprising hundred of pages can be transferred from one corner of the word to another within minutes. Even for a foreign opponent, the processing and sorting of evidence can never take the time of three months. Further, keeping the Coordinating Officer frequently changed is the lookout of the opponent's company. The law cannot help them. The equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Taking excuse as one of the grounds that opponent attorney's computer data was corrupted due to computer viruses cannot be believed as they have not filed any proof to that effect. Therefore, the grounds taken in the interlocutory petition are general in nature and no importance can be attached to that.