Disposed
Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited v. the Registrar of Trade Marks
Delhi HCW.C.(C)-IPD/57/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Page 1 of 5 $~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~30
Through: Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Ms. Deasha Mehta, Advs.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Case set up by the Petitioner .
2.1 It is stated that the Petitioner is the registered proprietor of the trademark „CRISPRO‟(label) under no. 450944 in class 30 and the said
W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 15/12/2025 at 13:10:48
registration was duly renewed upon filing renewal request and it was last renewed for a period of 10 years from 11.03.2007 i.e., up to 11.03.2017. Submissions by the Petitioner
3.1 He states that the Petitioner vide FORM-34 dated 02.04.2001 had duly registered the change of its trade and business address to the present address i.e., H-8, Parsakhera Industrial Area, Bareilly- 243502 [„new address‟] and the said application was allowed by the Registrar vide order dated 19.04.2004 and necessary entry was made in the trademark registry on 02.06.2004.
3.2 He states that the renewal of the trademark „CRISPRO‟ (label) was due on 11.03.2017, however, the Petitioner failed to apply for renewal and it also did not receive the mandatory notice [i.e, as per FORM RG-3] as required by law under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 („Act of 1999‟) read with Rule 58 (1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 for renewal of trademark.
3.3 He states that in July 2018, the Petitioner on checking the online records of the Trade Marks office found that the office issued the FORM RG-3 notice on 02.12.2016 but the same was sent to the old address despite the fact that the said address had changed and the new address was taken on record by the Registrar vide order dated 19.04.2004.
3.4 He states that on 05.10.2018, the Petitioner filed an Interlocutory Petition to renew the trademark „CRISPRO‟ (label) bearing registration no.
W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 15/12/2025 at 13:10:48
450944 in class 30, but no action was taken by the Respondent and therefore the present writ petition was filed.
3.5 He states that the online status of the aforementioned registration still shows „Registered‟ with an alert stating that the said trademark is likely to be removed due to non- filing of Renewal request within prescribed time limit in case of any discrepancy contact TM Registry.
Submissions by the Respondent
“Sir/Ma'am
As per record 0-3 notice in trademark application no. 450944 was generated on 02.12.2016 (Copy enclosed) the same was dispatched on the address "26-B MADHOBARI NAI BASTI, BAREILLY-243005 (UP) ”
It also mentioned here that the applicant has requested to change the address by fling TM-34 dated 02.04.2001 to change address from 2 6-B MADHOBARI NAI BASTI, BAREILLY-243005 (UP) to H-8. PARSAKHERA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BAREILLY-243502 and this request was allowed on 19.04.2004. However due to some technical error the service address of the application still shows “26-B MADHOBARI, NAI BASTI, BAREILLY 243005 (UP)‟ in the record of Trademark application no. 450944 and on this address O3 notice was issued.
Further as hon‟ble court decide trademark registry will follow the directions.
--
Regards, Vipin Senior Examiner of Trademark, Geographical Indication & Copyright/ Legal In-charge Trademark Registry, Delhi .”
W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 15/12/2025 at 13:10:48
issued by this Court.
Findings and analysis of the court
W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 15/12/2025 at 13:10:48
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
DECEMBER 5, 2025/ msh/IB
W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 15/12/2025 at 13:10:48
1 issue framed by the court
Was the Registrar bound to renew the trademark when the mandatory Form RG-3 renewal notice was sent to an outdated address despite a recorded change of address?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited
The Registrar of Trade Marks
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court