Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)Section 21 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Intellectual Property Attorneys ... vs The Controller General Of Patents, ... on 11 May, 2020
15. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the Public Notices and the
subsequent Fresh Notices by the Controller General of Patents, Designs &
Trade Marks, a Writ Petition titled Intellectual Property Attorneys
Association (IPAA) & Anr. v. Controller General of Patents Designs &
Trade Marks (CGPDTM) & Anr., bearing W.P.(C)-IPD 21/2023 was
instituted before this Court.
Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. ... vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr on 23 May, 2022
33. Similarly, in Purushottam Singhal (supra), the case of the appellant
therein was that neither the appellant nor any of his authorized
representatives were served with the Notice of Opposition, in terms of
Section 21(2) of the Act. Once again, after examining the case of the
opposition, the Court came to the conclusion that there was no proof of
service of the Notice of Opposition on the appellant and the impugned order
was set aside.
Rishabh Jain vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr on 1 March, 2023
In Rishabh Jain (supra), a similar controversy came before the
Coordinate Bench of this Court where the question arose whether or not the
Notice of Opposition filed under Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 42 of
the Trade Mark Rules was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner therein
contended that the email address on which the Notice of Opposition was
served was not correct. After examining the records of the case, the
Coordinate Bench came to the finding that the petitioner had not received
the opposition at the e-mail address specified in the Form filed with the
opposition. In view thereof, the impugned order therein was set aside and
the appeal was allowed.
1