Allowed

Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks and 1 Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2014WP/1934/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a single-paragraph order, disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the non-renewal or removal of trade mark registrations. The court observed that petitioners' marks were removed or renewal refused due to inadvertence, without issuing mandatory notices under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1993. The court directed the Registrar to grant resto

What did the court decide?

Grant restoration and/or renewal of the marks within two weeks of payment of requisite charges and compliance with formalities.

Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wpl1683-14g

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1683 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1684 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1688 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1687 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1690 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1691 OF 2014

¶5

Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited ...Petitioner V/s. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1686 OF 2014

¶7

EWF Pharmaceuticals Private Limited V/s.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Manish Saurastri with Mr.Rahul Dhote, Mr.Hemant Thadhani i/b Krishna & Saurastri Associates for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr.S.D. Bhosale with Mr.A.M.Sethna for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR & A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 18TH JULY, 2014.

P.C. :-

1/3

wpl1683-14g

Rule in all the above writ petitions, returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶17

These writ petitions are similar to Writ Petition No.1669 of 2012, which was disposed of by an order and judgment dated 23.09.2013 by a Division Bench, to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) was a party.

¶18

The petitioner's marks which are the subject matter of these writ petitions were registered long ago. The registrations in respect of each of the marks was renewed from time to time. Thereafter due to inadvertence, the registration was not renewed. The petitioner came to know that its marks have been removed from the register due to non-renewal in the first five petitions i.e. except in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1686 of 2014. The mark in the last petition has not yet been removed and the Registrar has refused to accept the application for renewal of the mark on the ground that it has not been renewed within time.

¶19

The petitioner has not received any notice as per section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1993 from the respondents notifying it of the date of expiration and the conditions as to payment of fees and otherwise upon which a renewal of registration may be obtained. In view of the said order and judgment, removal of the marks from the register is contrary to Section 25 of the Act and in particular sub-

¶20

2/3

¶21

wpl1683-14g

¶22

section 3 thereof and Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rule, 2002.

¶23

In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to grant restoration and/or renewal of the marks which are the subject matter of the above writ petitions, as the case may be within two weeks of the petitioner paying the requisite charges and complying with the requisite formalities. The corresponding registration number

¶24

of the marks in each of the petitions are as follows :-

¶25

Sr.No.	Writ Petition(Ldg.)No.	Registration No.
1.	1683 of 2014	477005
2.	1684 of 2014	601738
3.	1686 of 2014	895134
4.	1687 of 2014	601737
5.	1688 of 2014	868255
6.	1690 of 2014	591502
7.	1691 of 2014	549736

¶26

The above writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

¶27

No order as to costs.

¶28

(A.K. MENON, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶29

3/3

Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks and 1 Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks and 1 Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. Vs Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs the Bombay Incorporated Law Society and Ors.

Mrs. Shailaja B Subhedar and 4 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary Husing and Special Assistance and 5 Ors.

Perfect Cotton Co. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Abid Hussain S/O. Mohd. Kasim Mulla Vs Moh'D Tawfeeq Mazahiri (Qazi-E-Shariah) and 7 Ors.

Mrs. Najamai Noshir (Sheriar) Bezon Irani and 6 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.