Disclaimer

The web site is designed for general information purposes only and should not be construed to be formal legal advice. This website is not intended for any kind of solicitation or advertising.

In case you require any advice, you are requested to contact us before acting on any information. The firm takes no responsibility for any information that may be found not upto date/ incorrect/ insufficient. 

This website does not in any way establish or intend to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be used as such an invitation for attorney-client relationship.

The viewer acknowledges that there has been no inducement, invitation or solicitation of any nature whatsoever from Aswal Associates or any of its members/ Attorneys/ Advocates/ Lawyers to create an attorney-client relationship through this website.

Decline

Removal of Registered Trademark without following the mandatory procedure prescribed is bad in Law

Delhi High Court in a Letter Patent Appeal upheld the judgment passed by single bench of its own Court and has directing the restoration and renewal of the Trademark of the respondent i.e. "Malhotra Book Depot" for mark "MBD" in class 16 after satisfying that the respondent is the registered proprietor/successor of the registered proprietor of the registered trademark which has expired and that in the interregnum same or similar marks have not been registered. The said registration has expired in 1984 for want of renewal.

 

Divisional Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA no. 564 of 2012 titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Malhotra Book Depot has upheld the judgment dated November 29, 2011 passed by single bench of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.7882/2010 and has directing the restoration and renewal of the Trademark of the respondent "Malhotra Book Depot" for mark "MBD" in class 16 after satisfying that the respondent is the registered proprietor/successor of the registered proprietor of the registered trademark which has expired and that in the interregnum same or similar marks have not been registered.

 

Brief facts of the case:

 

(i)        The predecessors of the respondent (i.e. Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra and late Shri Balbir Singh, trading as M/s. Malhotra Book Depot) stated to be a partnership firm of Ms. Satish Bala Malhotra, Ms. Monica Malhotra Kandhari and Ms. Sonica Malhotra Kandhari) had applied for and were granted registration of the Trademark “MBD” in Class 16 for the goods “publications (printed) and books” vide Trade Mark Registration dated 23rd November, 1970;

(ii)       Registration thereafter duly renewed from 23rd November, 1977 to 23rd November, 1984;

(iii)      On 1st April, 1992 the constitution of M/s Malhotra Book Depot was changed and a fresh Partnership Deed was executed between the new partners i.e. Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra and Ms. Satish Bala Malhotra;

(iv)      On demise of Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra the constitution of the respondent M/s Malhotra Book Depot was again changed and a fresh Partnership Deed was executed between Ms. Satish Bala Malhotra, Ms. Monika Malhotra Kandhari and Ms. Sonica Malhotra Kandhari on 30th December, 2009;

(v)       In April, 2010 the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the Trademark MBD and in connection with the said suit applied for Certificate for Use in Legal Proceedings – however the application was returned by the appellant no.3 Registrar of Trade Marks as no records/details of the said Trademark could be traced in the database of the Registrar – in the consequent investigation by the respondent it was realized that the Trademark had not been renewed after 23rd November, 1984;

(vi)      Respondent on 7th October, 2010 applied for renewal and restoration of the said Trademark but which application was not accepted.

(vii)     Respondent sought a writ of mandamus for restoration and renewal of the Trademark on the basis that statutory Notice in Form O-3 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (the Rules as were applicable at the relevant time) informing the petitioner that the registration of the mark was expiring and can be renewed was not sent by the Registrar to the respondent and the Registrar could not thus deny restoration/renewal of the Trademark.

 

The Appellants challenged the same on mainly the following grounds that renewal of the mark had become due on 23rd November, 1984 i.e. 26 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and the writ petition suffered from delay and laches; that the factum of removal of the Trademark was notified in the Trade Mark Journal No.997 dated 16th December, 1990 for non-payment of renewal fees;  that such removal could not be without following the due process as per the provisions of law and the respondent was taking advantage of the fact that the 26 years old records of dispatch of Notice in Form O-3 would not be available with the Registrar; that on receipt of complaints regarding non-receipt of Registration Certificates and non-issuance of the Form O-3 Notices, Public Notices dated 24th September, 2010 and 31st November, 2010 were issued advising the public at large to file the petitions in the prescribed manner; that the respondent was also advised to file a petition in this regard vide letter from the Trade Mark Registry issued on 24th January, 2011.

 

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition observing/finding/holding:-

(a)        that the Registrar in its counter affidavit, in response to the unequivocal plea in the writ petition, that the Notice in Form O-3 was not received by the respondent, had merely stated that removal of the mark could not have been done without following the due process as per the provisions of law and had thus made only a presumptive statement; further, the Registrar in para 7 of the counter affidavit had admitted that in various cases O-3 Notices had not been issued; the learned Single Judge thus concluded that in the respondent’s case O-3 Notice had not been issued as provided for in Rule 67;

(b)       that under Section 25 of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (the Act) (which was applicable in the year 1984 when the Registration of the mark of the respondent expired), the application for renewal of the registration could be made upon receipt of the Notice in Form O-3;

(c)        that the Registrar could remove the Trademark from the Register and advertise the factum of removal in the Journal only after a Notice in Form O-3 had been issued;

(d)       that the removal of the registered Trademark from the Register entails civil consequences for the registered proprietor of the mark;

(e)        the said removal of the registered Trademark cannot be done without prior notice to the registered proprietor in the prescribed form;

(f)        mere expiration of the registration by lapse of time and the failure of the registered proprietor of the Trademark to get the same renewed, by itself, does not lead to the conclusion that the same can be removed from the Register by the Registrar of Trade Marks without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 25(3) of the Act r/w Rule 67 of the Rules;

(g)       removal of the registered Trademark from the Register without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25(3) would itself be laconic and illegal;

(f)        mere expiration of the registration by lapse of time and the failure of the registered proprietor of the Trademark to get the same renewed, by itself, does not lead to the conclusion that the same can be removed from the Register by the Registrar of Trade Marks without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 25(3) of the Act r/w Rule 67 of the Rules;

(g)       removal of the registered Trademark from the Register without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25(3) would itself be laconic and illegal;

(h)       that the plea of the Registrar that the application for restoration and renewal of the mark was beyond the time prescribed in Section 25(4) and Rule 69 could not be accepted because the removal of the mark from the Register was not in terms of Section 25(3) r/w Rules 67 & 68;

(i)        that under the Act and the Rules, mere lapse of the time does not result in its removal and for which Notice in Form O-3 is required to be given; (j). that in the facts of the present case, since the mandatory Notice in Form O-3 had not been given prior to the removal of the mark, the application seeking its restoration and renewal could not be said to be barred by time.

 

In Letter Patent Appeal before the Divisional Bench, the Appellant also relied on order dated 16th April, 2012 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in OA No.59&60/2011/TM/KOL titled Pernod Ricard India Private Ltd. Vs. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks holding that the Act does not make the renewal of the trademark dependent upon the service of Notice in Form O-3 and does not make the factum of removal of the mark dependent on the issuance of such notice.

 

The Respondent relied on Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. Vs. Government of India (2007) where a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court held that in the absence of Notice in Form O-3, the order of removal of the mark on the ground of non-payment of renewal fees within the prescribed time is bad and directed renewal.

The divisional bench considered the importance of the issue raised and

News & Updates

Quick Contact

Our Services