Court Finds Lack of Evidence for Dispatch of Mandatory Renewal Notice, Allows Proprietor to Reapply
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has allowed Punam Chand Kedia to reapply for the renewal of his trademark "HMP," following the Registrar of Trade Marks' initial rejection due to non-receipt of the mandatory O-3 notice. The court found that there was no reliable evidence proving that the notice, which is a prerequisite for the renewal process, was dispatched to the petitioner.
The case revolved around the petitioner's application for the renewal of his trademark "HMP," registered under application number 833146 in Class 09. Initially registered on December 21, 1998, and subsequently renewed, the trademark's validity was set to expire on December 21, 2015. However, the petitioner only became aware of the impending expiration and potential removal of his trademark in June 2025, after which he promptly filed Form TM-R for renewal, which was rejected by the Registrar on the grounds of expired renewal time.
The court, presided by Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan, emphasized the statutory requirement under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, which mandates the Registrar to send a notice in Form O-3 to the registered proprietor before the expiration of the trademark. This notice should include the date of expiration and the conditions for renewal. The court noted that the Registrar failed to provide convincing evidence of dispatch, such as proof of delivery, thereby making the rejection unsustainable.
The judgment allows Kedia to file a fresh Form TM-R with the prescribed fee within two weeks, ensuring that the Registrar of Trade Marks processes this application in accordance with the rules. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance by trademark authorities and safeguards the rights of trademark proprietors.
Bottom Line :
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Renewal/restoration of trademark - In absence of reliable evidence to show that notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Act read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 was dispatched to registered proprietor, rejection of renewal request on ground of expiry of time is unsustainable - Proprietor permitted to file fresh Form TM-R with prescribed fee.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 25(3), Trade Marks Rules, 2002 Rule 64(1)
Punam Chand Kedia v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989418
