Partly allowed

Epigeneres Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Trademark Registry

Bombay HC22 Apr 2025COMMP/32/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal of trademark registration was challenged as a cryptic, unreasoned order ignoring the applicant's detailed reply to the examination report. The court held that statutory authorities must pass well-reasoned orders even on refusal, quashed the impugned order and remanded for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Registrar for fresh decision within eight weeks; petitioner may file supplementary reply within three weeks.

Epigeneres Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2025)

bipin prithiani

25-commp-32.24.doc

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

¶5

COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 32 OF 2024

¶6

Epigeneres Botech Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Registrar of Trade Marks, … Trademark Registry Respondent

¶7

¶8

Mr. Siddharth Samantray (through V.C.) a/w Radhika Pujara, Abhijit Ranjan, Hema Desai i/by Shivani Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra i/by Pranjal Sharma for Respondent.

¶9

¶10

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 22^nd APRIL 2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

BIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANI Digitally signed byBIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANIDate: 2025.04.22 18:12:48 +0530

¶14

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 22^nd December 2022 passed by the respondent, whereby the application for registration of the applicant’s mark “Xtremely Active” under class 5 has been refused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is cryptic in nature and although it records that the respondent perused the records and thereupon refused registration, there is no discussion on the merits of the matter. It is submitted that Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, has been simply referred to, but there is no detailed discussion as to why the mark has been refused

bipin prithiani

25-commp-32.24.doc

registration on that count.

¶19

Attention of this Court is also invited to the reply affidavit to the examination report placed before the respondent, whereby detailed submissions were made and reference was also made to various judgments in support of contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that none of these contentions have been discussed in the impugned order.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the light of the nature of the impugned order, if this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the respondent, the matter can be reconsidered and a detailed order can be passed.

¶21

A perusal of the order indeed shows that it is cryptic in nature and none of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the reply to the examination report have been considered in an appropriate manner. It is simply recorded that the respondent went through the records and thereupon, registration has been refused. The respondent is a statutory authority and it is expected to pass well reasoned orders, even if the application is to be refused, so that the aggrieved party is aware as to on what grounds registration has been refused. In the absence of reasoning, it creates a handicap for the aggrieved party to raise detailed grounds of challenge. Such cryptic orders are wholly unsustainable and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

bipin prithiani

25-commp-32.24.doc

The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has invited attention of this Court to a specific statement made in the present petition. It is stated that the Registrar ought to have taken into consideration the fact that a device mark of the petitioner “Xtremely Active Resveratrol” has been granted registration by the Trade Marks Registry under class 5. This aspect is certainly relevant and the respondent ought to take into consideration the aforementioned aspect also. In that light, the petitioner will have to be given an opportunity to place the said fact on record before the respondent.

¶26

In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent for consideration afresh. The petitioner is permitted to place on record supplementary reply to the examination report within three weeks from today.

¶27

The respondent shall decide the matter afresh, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within eight weeks of this order being produced before the respondent.

¶28

MANISH PITALE, J.

Epigeneres Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Trademark Registry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Epigeneres Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Trademark Registry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyanu Namdev Yadav ( Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) and Ors. vs Sari Sadu Yadav (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs )

Shantinath Vishwambhar Swami and Ors. vs Shri Ravansiddha Dev . Devnagar and Ors.

Dhullappa Babanna Madkari Since Deceased through Lrs vs Dundappa Rama Madkari Since Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors.

Naresh Soni vs Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.

Newasrao Bhikaji Adbale vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Harsh Clean Dhan Private Limited