Author: Shivangi Tandon
In the matter of M/S V-Guard Industries Ltd v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2022], Single Judge [C. HARI SHANKAR, J.] of the High Court of Delhi, via judgment dated January 06, 2023, allowed the appeal against an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on August 30, 2018, declaring the opposition filed by the Opponent (Appellant) as abandoned on the ground of delay in filing of evidence in support of opposition. The Single Judge interpreted the term ‘leave with the Registrar’ provided under Rule 45 (1) of Trade Mark Rules, 2017 in a broad connotation by observing that the procedural provisions cannot be interpreted so rigidly that they eviscerate the rights of the citizens and directed the Registrar (Respondent) to take on record, the evidence filed by the Appellant via courier.
Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 provides that – “Within two months from service of a copy of the counterstatement, the opponent shall…leave with the Registrar, such evidence by way of affidavit as he may desire to adduce in support of his opposition…”. However, the expression “leave with the Registrar” is nebulous and the question that arises is what would be considered as “left with the Registrar”
In the present case, the Appellant’s attempts to upload its Evidence within the original deadline were unsuccessful due to the Respondent’s website being non-functional. However, the Appellant sent its Evidence to the office of the Respondent via courier the very next day. The courier containing the Appellant’s evidence was received by the Respondent 3 days beyond the original deadline and subsequently, the Respondent had deemed the Opposition as abandoned. The Appellant stated that the delay was the result of a technical issue with the Respondent’s website, because of which the documents were sent to the office of the Respondent by courier the next day.
The court set aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent abandoning the Opposition and observed that the term ‘leave with the Registrar’ should be interpreted in a broad connotation and stated that “What Rule 45(1) requires is that the evidence must be “left with the Registrar”. Where the statute is ambiguous, the benefit of ambiguity has to go to the citizen. This would be especially so where the statute confers a valuable commercial right on the citizen. It cannot be gainsaid that, having submitted the notice of opposition…the tendering of evidence in support of the opposition was a valuable commercial right which enured in favor of the opponent/appellant.”
Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.
Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP