Disposed

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Delhi HC10 Feb 2025W.C.(C)-IPD/38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged rejection of a TM-M application seeking transfer of a trade mark registration to the petitioner. The Registry's counsel stated the assignment deed was not on record but agreed to a hearing. The court set aside the rejection, remanded the matter for fresh orders after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29 April 2023 set aside; matter remanded to Trade Marks Registry for fresh order after hearing petitioner within three weeks.

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited Vs the Registrar of… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C)-IPD 38/2024

¶4

MANASH LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nageshwar Kumar & Mr. Ayush Dey, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Biswajit Dubey, CGSC wit Ms Gurleen Kaur & Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates for UoI.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 10.02.2025

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the rejection of TM-M Application No. 1472720 dated 29th April, 2023 by the respondent and directing the respondent to transfer the ownership of trade mark Application No. 4027598 in Class 3 from M/s Faces Cosmetics India Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioner.

¶11

Notice is the present writ petition was issued on 13^th December 2024 and counsel for the respondent was asked to take instructions.

¶12

Ms. Radhika Biswajit Dubey, counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that the assignment deed in favour of the petitioner is not available in the records of the Trade Marks Registry. Nevertheless, the respondent is willing to give a hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29^th April, 2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trade Marks Registry.

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

W.P.(C)-IPD 38/2024

¶16

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 17/02/2025 at 17:37:16

¶17

The Trade Marks Registry shall pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Notice for the hearing will be given to the petitioner and hearing will be conducted within three weeks from today.

¶18

With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trade Marks Registry on email [email protected] for compliance.

¶20

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 10, 2025

¶22

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

W.P.(C)-IPD 38/2024

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 17/02/2025 at 17:37:16

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks

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

M/S Rspl Health Private Ltd. Vs Giani Ram Mittal & Ors.

Relaxo Footwears Limited Vs M/S Bansal Polymer through Its Proprietor Mr. Anil Bansal

Monster Energy Company Vs Harpreet Sachdeva & Anr.

M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. 132, Pengmei Road, Nana City, FUJIAN-362300 China Vs M/S/ Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road, Opposite Jagraon Bridge Ludhinana - 141008 Pune

Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. Vs Patel Brijesh Kumar Balubhai and Anr.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. Vs Patel Brijesh Kumar Balubhai and Anr.