Case Law Details
Aman Engineering Works Vs Registrar Trade Marks (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Registrar of Trade Marks has no power to condone the delay in the filing of an application seeking review beyond expiry of one month from the date of the decision of which review is sought.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the learned Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi in TM-M Review Applications for the mark “RITE KRANTI” [review filed by the respondent no. 2 against order dated 09.07.2002] and 765101 for the mark “B&M KRANTI” [review filed by the respondent no. 2 against order dated 11.08.2006], allowing the aforementioned review applications filed by the respondent no. 2. By the application no. 631248 filed on 16.06.1994, the respondent 2 applied for the registration of the mark “RITE KRANTI” in Class 9 with respect to “water meters, oil meters, gas meters, speed meters and meters of all types”. An Examination Report dated 05.10.1999 was issued by the respondent no.1 communicating the grounds of objection to the registration of the mark. Subsequently, vide an order dated 09.07.2002 the application was dismissed as “abandoned”. Similarly, by the application no. 765101 filed on 28.07.1997, the respondent no. 2 had applied for the registration of the mark “B&M KRANTI” in Class 9 was also eventually dismissed as “abandoned” vide order dated 11.08.2006.
The petitioner submitted Rule 119 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 provides that an application for review can be filed “within one month from the date of the decision or within such further period not exceeding one month thereafter as the Registrar may on request allow”. In the present case, the review applications were filed almost seventeen years (for application No. 631248) and sixteen years (for application No. 765101) after the rejection orders, dismissing the applications filed by the respondent no. 2 seeking registration of its marks as “abandoned”. The applications were, therefore, were not only barred by limitation, but also the respondent no.1 had no power to condone the delay.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the question to be determined by this Court is as to whether the respondent no. 1 has the power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in Rule 119 of the Rules. Section 127(c) of the Act empowers the Registrar to review its own decision. A reading of the said Rule would show that an application seeking review of a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks/respondent 1 has to be made within a period of one month from the date of such decision or within such further period not exceeding one month thereafter, as the Registrar of Trade Marks/respondent no. 1 may on request allow. Therefore, it sets the maximum outer limit by which the delay in filing of an application seeking review of the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks/respondent no. 1 can be condoned .
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
