Plus Systems, Inc. And Visa ... vs Plus Computer Systems Ltd., Assistant ... on 29 January, 2008
9. When an application for registration of trade mark is filed any person may oppose the application for registration. Rule 56 of the Rules provide for the procedure of hearing and decision by the Registrar. Under Sub-rule (1) of the said rule, the Registrar shall, upon completion of evidence if any, give notice to the parties of the first date of hearing and within fourteen days from the receipt of the first notice, any party who intends to appear shall so notify the Registrar in Form TM-7 and if any party who does not so notify within the stipulated time be treated as not desiring to be heard and the Registrar may act accordingly in the matter. Sub-rule (4) of that rule provide that if the opponent is not present at the adjourned date of hearing and has not notified his intention to attend the hearing in Form TM-7, the opposition may be dismissed for want of prosecution and the application may proceed to registration subject to Section 19 of the Act. The language "the Registrar may act accordingly" and "the opposition may be dismissed" employed in Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (4), respectively, of that rule indicate that these powers of Registrar are discretionary in nature. In the instant appeal, the respondent No. 2 has in exercise of his discretionary powers decided to pass the order on merits. We do not see any illegality committed by respondent No. 2 by deciding to pass the order on merits in the matter. The order passed in case Hindustan Lever Limited (supra) is distinguishable and will be of no help to the appellants. In that case of Hindustan Lever Limited, the notice of hearing sent to the opponent was not properly addressed-as given by the opponent-and the opponent could not appear and could not notify its intention to attend the hearing.