Allowed¶18

Everest Holdings Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Trade marks – Disclaimer condition

Bombay HC10 Mar 2025COMMP/5/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Everest Holdings Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks; Bombay High Court, Commercial Division; Commercial Misc. Petition No. 5 of 2025; trade mark registration; disclaimer condition; deletion of disclaimer; unreasoned / non-speaking order; quashed and set aside; remanded to Examiner of Trade Mark; adjudication afresh within six weeks; written submissions to examination report; decided July 10, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: impugned order dated 26th February, 2024 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the Examiner of Trade Mark for fresh adjudication within six weeks, taking into consideration the written submissions to the examination report and additional written submissions to be filed by the Petitioner within one week. ¶18

Everest Holdings Limited vs the Registrar of Trade Marks — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction sought for deletion of the disclaimer condition imposed on the trade mark applied for registration should be granted. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The matter is remanded to the Examiner of Trade Mark for fresh adjudication within six weeks, taking into consideration the written submissions to the examination report as well as additional written submissions to be filed by the Petitioner within one week.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 26th February, 2024 is a non-speaking order devoid of any reasons and discussion, which merely accepts the device mark with disclaimer; by reason of the non-speaking order this Court does not have the benefit of a reasoned order and is unable to comprehend the reasons for which the disclaimer has been inserted.

¶11

Key takeaways

In light of the above (the absence of reasons in the impugned order), the impugned order dated 26th February, 2024 is quashed and set aside.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Trade marks – Disclaimer condition – Order dated 26.02.2024 accepting the device mark 'with disclaimer' held to be a non-speaking order devoid of any reasons and discussion – Petitioner had responded to the examination report and argued at the hearing, but its submissions were not reflected – Court unable to comprehend the basis for the disclaimer – Impugned order quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to the Examiner of Trade Mark for fresh adjudication within 6 weeks, taking into account the written submissions to the examination report and further written submissions to be filed within 1 week – Petition allowed. (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; Bombay HC, Commercial Division; COMMP No. 5 of 2025; decided 10.07.2025.)

¶1

47 COMMP 5-25

¶2

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

¶3

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶4

COMMERCIAL MISC. PETITION NO. 5 OF 2025

¶5

Everest Holdings Limited	… Petitioner.
*Versus*
The Registrar of Trade Marks	… Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Rohan Savant a/w. Kaivalya Shetye i/by Mahesh Mahadgut for Petitioner. Mr. Vinit Jain a/w. Ashutosh Mishra a/w. Gaurav Mhatre for Respondent No.1.

¶7

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 10, 2025

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1. The present petition seeks direction for deletion of the disclaimer condition imposed on the trade mark applied for registration.

¶10

2. Mr. Savant, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out the impugned order dated 26^th February, 2024 and would submit that there are no reasons given for inserting the disclaimer. He would further point out that the Petitioner had responded to the examination report and had also advanced submissions during the hearing which have not been considered.

¶11

3. Perusal of the order dated 26^th February, 2024 indicates that the same is devoid of any reasons and discussion and only accepts the device mark with disclaimer. By reason of non-speaking order this

1 of 2

sa_mandawgad

47 COMMP 5-25

Court does not have the benefit of the reasoned order and is unable to comprehend the reasons for which the disclaimer has been inserted.

¶16

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that within period of six weeks the matter will be adjudicated afresh.

¶17

5. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 26^th February, 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Examiner of Trade Mark and to be adjudicated afresh within period of 6 weeks after taking into consideration the written submissions to the examination report as well as the additional written submissions to be filed by the Petitioner within period of one week from today.

¶18

6. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶19

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶20

2 of 2

¶21

sa_mandawgad

¶22

Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/07/2025 20:53:37

Everest Holdings Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Everest Holdings Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Veeramaneni Venugopalrao vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Mr. Fredrick Fernandes (Deleted) and Ors. vs Mr.Ramkaran Shivram Yadav(Deleted)His LRS.1A.SMT.PARVATI Ramkaran Wd/O. Ramkaran S. Yadav and Ors.

Chordia Landmarks Realtty Private Limited vs Employees State Insurance Corportion and Others

Marico Limited vs Morvin India Health Care Private Limited

Marico Limited vs Morvin India Health Care Private Limited

Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot So. Shri Nemaram Gehlot vs Chander Prakash Rai M S K.B.H International