Kusum Electricals Prop Ram Karan Yadav Vs Deputy Registrar Trademark & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kusum Electricals Prop Ram Karan Yadav Vs Deputy Registrar Trademark & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of: impugned order dated 09.11.2022 set aside; matter remanded to the Trademark Registry for fresh decision after hearing notice to the appellant and respondent no.2; appellant's right to file counter-statement and counter-evidence remains closed; Registry directed (via office of CGPDTM, e-mail [email protected]) to ensure compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks dated 9 November 2022 — which cancelled the appellant's 'STARMODI' registration after the appellant's non-appearance at a single hearing date — should be set aside on natural justice grounds so that the appellant may be heard before the Trademark Registry. +1 more

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, and applying the principles of natural justice, the Court held that one opportunity should have been granted to the appellant to appear before the Trademark Registry to present its case; the impugned order was passed solely on account of the appellant's non-appearance on one date of hearing, and has harsh consequences in that a mark registered in 2012 was ordered removed without the appellant being given an opportunity of being heard.

Ratio / Principle

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 9 November 2022 and remanded the matter to the Trademark Registry to decide it afresh after giving a hearing notice to the appellant and respondent no.2.

Key takeaways

Notwithstanding the remand, the appellant's right to file counter-statement as well as counter-evidence remains closed; the appellant was not provided any fresh opportunity to file a counter-statement or counter-evidence in the opposition.ratio¶29
By way of caveat on the remand, the Court reiterated that it had not examined the merits of the matter and directed that the Deputy Registrar decide the matter independently in accordance with law; the Court also made clear (paras 15 and closing pages) that the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and would not be treated as a precedent.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Trade Marks — Rectification/Cancellation — Natural justice. Delhi High Court (Amit Bansal, J.; order dated 15.05.2025) disposed of an appeal by Kusum Electricals Prop Ram Karan Yadav against the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks' order dated 09.11.2022, which had allowed respondent no.2's rectification petition and ordered removal of the appellant's registered mark 'STARMODI' (Regn. No. 2412178, Class 11). The impugned order was passed after the appellant missed the final hearing of 13.10.2022, having already lost its right to file a counter-statement (notice served 18.07.2019) and filed no counter-evidence. Without entering the merits, the Court held that, on principles of natural justice, one opportunity to be heard ought to have been granted, since the registration (granted in 2012) was removed solely for non-appearance on one date. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Trademark Registry for fresh adjudication after hearing notice to both sides; however, the appellant's closed right to file counter-statement and counter-evidence was expressly not revived. The Court directed that the merits remain to be decided independently by the Deputy Registrar, and clarified that the order was passed in peculiar facts and would not be treated as a precedent.

$~3.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 157/2022 and I.A. 19965/2022 & I.A. 20009/2022

KUSUM ELECTRICALS PROP RAM KARAN YADAV .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Amarendra Dubey and Mr. K. L. Mishra, Advocates

versus

DEPUTY REGISTRAR TRADEMARK & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Ms. Aastha Sood and Mr. Tanmay Saini, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Mr. Mahan Arora, Ms. Srishti Arora and Mr. Saubhagya Arora, Advocates for R-2.

%

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL ORDER 15.05.2025

The present appeal has been filed seeking the setting aside of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks on 9^th November, 2022, whereby the rectification petition filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 has been allowed and the mark of the appellant ‘STARMODI’ has been ordered to be removed from the Registry.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as follows:

Page 1 of 4

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 157/2022

This is a digitally signed order. 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 28/05/2025 at 11:17:26

A rectification petition was filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 on 16^th September, 2017 seeking cancellation of the registration of the impugned mark ‘STARMODI’ bearing no.2412178 in class 11 granted in favour of the appellant.

Despite being served with the notice of opposition on 18^th July, 2019, no counter-statement was filed on behalf of the appellant within the prescribed statutory time period, and thus, the appellant’s right to file the same stood closed.

Subsequently, the respondent no.2 filed its evidence in support of the opposition. However, no counter-evidence was filed on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter, the opposition was fixed for hearing before the Trademark Registry.

At the hearing scheduled on 28^th July, 2022, an adjournment was taken on behalf of the appellant. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 12^th September, 2022, the respondent no.2 took an adjournment. Ultimately, the hearing was fixed for 13^th October, 2022, which was attended by the counsel for respondent no.2. However, none appeared on behalf of the appellant on the date of the said hearing.

Pursuant to the aforesaid hearing, the impugned order was passed on 9^th November, 2022 and the appellant’s registration for the impugned mark was cancelled.

It is the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the date of hearing was missed by the appellant’s attorney and the appellant came to know of the impugned order only after he was informed by its distributors that the mark of the appellant has been removed from the Register of Trademarks.

Page 2 of 4

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 157/2022

This is a digitally signed order.

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 28/05/2025 at 11:17:26

Without going into the merits of the case and taking into account the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that one opportunity should have been granted to the appellant to appear before the Trademark Registry to present its case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed on account of non-appearance of the appellant only on one date of hearing. The impugned order has harsh consequences on the appellant inasmuch as the Trademark that was registered in favour of the appellant in 2012 has been ordered to be removed, and that too without the appellant being given an opportunity of being heard.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 9^th November, 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trademark Registry to decide the same afresh after giving a hearing notice to the appellant and the respondent no.2.

It is made clear that the right of the appellant to file counter-statement as well as counter-evidence already stands closed and there cannot be any question of the appellant being provided a fresh opportunity to file a counter-statement or counter-evidence in the opposition.

The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the present order to the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks of India on the e-mail- [email protected] for compliance.

It is reiterated that the Court has not examined the merits of the matter and the Deputy Registrar shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law.

It is made clear that the aforesaid order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and will not be treated

Page 3 of 4

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 157/2022

This is a digitally signed order.

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 28/05/2025 at 11:17:26

as a precedent.

AMIT BANSAL, J

MAY 15, 2025

Vivek/-

Page 4 of 4

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 157/2022

This is a digitally signed order. 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 28/05/2025 at 11:17:26