Delhi High Court - Orders
Raj Vardhan Patodia (Huf) vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 15 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 4/2024
RAJ VARDHAN PATODIA (HUF) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. CM Lall, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kunal Vajani, Mr. Kunal
Mimani, Mr. Anshuman Gupta,
Mr. Prashant Alai and Mr. Gaurav
Khatri, 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.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 15.01.2024 I.A. 904/2024 (seeking exemption from filing certified copy of order dated 12.09.2023)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 905/2024 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
4. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. Appellant, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the said Act.
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 25/01/2024 at 13:06:09 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 4/2024, I.A. 906/2024 (for stay)
5. The present appeal, filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, is directed against order dated 12th September, 2023, whereby the opposition of the Appellant to trademark application No. 3353987 has been deemed to be abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trademark Rules, 2017.
6. Mr. Chander Lall, Senior Counsel representing the Appellant, states that the hearing officer has not considered the facts brought to his notice during the hearing and mechanically passed the order, without application of mind. He submits that the counter-statement served on the Appellant did not pertain to trademark application No. 3353987. This fact was brought to the knowledge of Deputy Registrar of Trademarks and Head of Department of the Trademarks Registry. Yet, a default hearing notice was issued by the officer and impugned order was passed. Mr. Lall states that in fact, after the hearing was concluded, as directed by the officer, an affidavit was filed by Appellant's counsel on the same day, putting all the facts on record.
7. Issue notice. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Reply be filed within two weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
8. Let notice be issued to Respondent No. 2, upon filing of process fee, by all permissible modes, returnable on 13th February, 2024. Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 15, 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 25/01/2024 at 13:06:09