Dismissed

Romsons Scientific and Surgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Registrar of Trademarks and Anr.

Delhi HC13 May 2024C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)/140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal in default due to non-prosecution. The court noted that both the appellant and respondent No. 2 could not be served despite diligent efforts, and neither party appeared to contest the proceedings. The matter could not be proceeded further. (estimate: 35 words)

What did the court decide?

The present appeal is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

Romsons Scientific and Surgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2022

¶4

ROMSONS SCIENTIFIC AND SURGICAL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: None.

¶5

versus

¶6

ASST. REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS AND ANR

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

¶11

O R D E R 13.05.2024

¶12

On 22^nd March, 2024, the Joint Registrar has submitted the following report, in relation to effecting service on the parties:

¶13

“The appellant was served, vide ordinary means on 22.09.2023, as noted in the order dated 31.10.2023. Its Trademark-agent had also been served on 01.03.2024. However the appellant has never appeared, nor removed the deficiencies pointed out long back in the order dated 31.10.2023.

¶14

The respondent no. 1 had already appeared through counsel. (Refer: order dated 28.10.2022)

¶15

The respondent no. 2 could not be served despite repeated efforts. It was noted in the previous order dated 19.01.2024 that the service report of the respondent no. 2 (at its second address) was that of unserved with the remarks “no such person”. It was also noted in the same order that the counsel for the respondent no. 2 had refused the notice on the ground that “he was no longer representing the respondent no. 2”. Now the latest notice issued to the registered Trademark-agent of the respondent no. 2 for today is also received back unserved with the report of “no such person resides at the given address”. These circumstances clearly depicts that the respondent no. 2 could not be served despite diligent and exhaustive efforts.

¶16

Now when neither the appellant is appearing, nor the respondent no.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2024 at 11:39:11

¶19

2 could be served, it is difficult to proceed further with this petition. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court on 13.05.2024.”

¶20

In light of the above report, it is apparent that both the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 are not interested in contesting the present proceedings. There are no other contact details available with the Registry to serve the parties. All attempts made earlier have been unsuccessful.

¶21

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

¶22

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶23

MAY 13, 2024 nk

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2024 at 11:39:11

Romsons Scientific and Surgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Registrar of Trademarks and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romsons Scientific and Surgical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Registrar of Trademarks and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Foundry Visionmongers Limited Vs Vaw World Innovation Private Limited & Ors.

Hindustan Distilleries Vs Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks & Anr.

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs John Doe and Others

Eli Lilly and Company and Anr. Vs Natco Pharma Limited and Anr.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co. Kg & Anr. Vs Natco Pharma Limited

M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal Vs Mr Sahabuddin Mondal Trading as M/S. Salma Zarda Works