Delhi High Court - Orders
Mahesh Gupta vs Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr on 8 August, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C)-IPD 22/2022
MAHESH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Swapnil Guar & Mr. Kumar
Chitranshu, Advs. (M:9897905254)
versus
DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidhyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Alexander Mathai
Paikday, Advocate.
Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 08.08.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This matter has been taken up in the typed supplementary list. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner was asked to telephonically contact ld. Counsel for the Registrar of Trademarks, as also, ld. Counsel for the contesting Respondent. Both have entered appearance virtually.
3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the setting aside of the direction issued by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, dismissing the Petitioner's Opposition No.710431 qua Trademark Application No.800316 in respect of the impugned device mark 'KENT', as well as, proceedings with the Advertisement of the impugned mark. The impugned order is stated to be not yet uploaded and hence not available.
4. The trademark involved in the present case is 'KENT'. On 28th April, 1998, the Respondent/Applicant filed the Trademark Application No.800316 W.P. (C)-IPD 22/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:16.08.2022 15:22:35 for the device mark 'KENT' on proposed-to-be-used basis, in Class 11 in respect of "Installation for lighting, heating, cooking, steam generating refrigerating, drying and ventilating, fans, lighting lamps, fitting, accessories and parts thereof". The said mark was advertised in the Trademark Journal on 16th February, 2007 and the opposition was filed by the Petitioner on 10th September, 2007, within the time prescribed. Pleadings were completed and evidence was filed in the year 2014.
5. The opposition is stated to have been listed on several occasions for hearing but the hearings were not held in view of the adjournments sought by the Petitioner. The impugned mark was shown as being opposed on 1st August, 2022. However, as on 6th August, 2022, the status of the impugned mark is shown as 'advertised before acceptance'.
6. The contention of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Opponent is that the matter was fixed for hearing on 1st August, 2022 before the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. However, an email was sent on the evening of 31st July, 2022 seeking an adjournment due to a medical emergency in the family of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Opponent. Despite this request, the opposition has been deemed to be abandoned and the status of the mark has been changed on the website.
7. Issue notice. Mr. Mohan Vidhani, ld. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No.2/Applicant. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, ld. CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1 - Deputy Registrar of Trademarks.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Vidhani, ld. Counsel, that repeated adjournments have been taken by the Petitioner/Opponent without any justification. He submits that the ld. Counsel appearing for the W.P. (C)-IPD 22/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:16.08.2022 15:22:35 Petitioner/Opponent before the Registrar had requested for an adjournment on 29th July, 2022 orally to Mr. Vidhani, which was refused. Thereafter, a request for adjournment was made only one day prior to the date of hearing i.e., on 31st July, 2022 at 8:36 p.m. without filing the requisite form and requisite fee.
9. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, ld. CGSC submits that an order has been passed by the Deputy Registrar rejecting the opposition as abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
10. The impugned order dealing with the opposition as having been abandoned is not placed on record as yet, as the same has not been uploaded on the website of the Registrar as well. Let the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, dismissing the Petitioner's Opposition No.710431 qua Trademark Application No.800316 in respect of the impugned device mark 'KENT' be produced before the Court, on the next date of hearing. If the certificate in respect of the impugned mark has not already been issued, the same shall not be issued, till the next date of hearing.
11. Mr. Vidhani, ld. Counsel opposes the stay order being granted on the ground that the Petitioner has also filed an application in respect of this very mark in respect of goods falling in Class 11, in respect of which the Respondent No.2 is stated to be the prior user. Since the copy of the order is not even available, the interim order till the next date, is being granted.
12. List for further hearing on 16th August, 2022.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
AUGUST 8, 2022/dk/ad W.P. (C)-IPD 22/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:16.08.2022 15:22:35