Delhi High Court - Orders
Asha Agrawal vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 31 January, 2025
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 6/2025 with CAV 55/2025, I.A. 2578/2025
and I.A. 2579/2025
ASHA AGRAWAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani and Mr. Akash
Singh, Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal and Mr. Zubin Singh,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Ms. Ramya
Aggarwal, Ms. Vaishnavi Bhargava,
Mr. Ishank Jha, Mr. Aakarsh Mishra
and Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Advocates
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 31.01.2025
CAV 55/2025 (caveat)
1. In view of the fact that appearance has been entered on behalf of the respondents and a complete set of the appeal paper-book has been supplied to the counsel for the respondents, the Caveat stands discharged. I.A. 2579/2025 (seeking exemption from filing certified/clear copies etc.)
2. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the annexures within four weeks from today.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 6/2025 Page 1 of 2This 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 28/02/2025 at 22:28:34
3. The application stands disposed of.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 6/2025 and I.A. 2578/2025
4. This appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 against the final order dated 14th November, 2024 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks, whereby the opposition filed on behalf of the appellant has been rejected.
5. Mr. Miglani, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Registrar has failed to take into account the cross-examination of the partners of the respondent No.2, Laxmi Narayan Agarwal and Satya Prakash Agarwal, whereby they have specifically admitted that they have not used the impugned mark.
6. Per contra, Mr. Arkaj Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submits that the appellant had no locus to file the aforesaid opposition since the user claimed by the appellant is in fact the user of a firm which stands dissolved.
7. Issue notice.
8. Notice is accepted by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9. Let the reply be filed within three weeks from today.
10. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
11. List on 6th May, 2025.
12. In the meanwhile, the Registry shall summon the entire record of the aforesaid opposition proceedings from the Trademark Registry, albeit in a digitized form.
AMIT BANSAL, J JANUARY 31, 2025/Vivek/-
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 6/2025 Page 2 of 2This 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 28/02/2025 at 22:28:34