Allowed

M.S. Earthevents ( I) Private Limited v. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras HC4 Sept 2023(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal against an order removing Trade Mark No. 1249884 was allowed. The High Court set aside the removal order primarily due to a violation of Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act and Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules because the Registrar failed to serve the requisite notice (Form O-3) to the registered proprietor.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order removing the trade mark is set aside, and the appellant is permitted to take necessary steps for the renewal of the Trade Mark.

M.S. Earthevents ( I) Private Limited Vs Assistant… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023 (OA/1/2017/TM/CH)

¶7

M.S.Earthevents (I) Private Limited, Promenade S2, 2^nd Floor, 76/3, Nandidurga Road, Jayamahal New Extension, Bangalore - 560 046, Karnataka, India.

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

-vs-

¶10

Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office, Intellectual Property Office Building, G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Tamil Nadu, India.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trademarks) filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying to order for removing the subject Trade Mark and allow the appellant to renew the Trade Mark by filing appropriate forms along with fees.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.Amarjeet Kumar for M/s.Khurana & Khurana

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant assails the order removing Trade Mark No.1249884 in

¶20

Class 41 from the Register of Trade Marks.

¶21

The principal ground on which the appellant assails the order is

¶22

that the Registrar of Trade Marks did not issue notice to the registered proprietor of the mark in accordance with Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002. Specifically, the appellant asserts that it was incumbent on the Registrar of Trade Marks to issue notice in Form O-3 before removing a mark from the Register of Trade Marks. On account of non-compliance with such essential condition, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.Baskaran V. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and another (2019 SCC OnLine Mad 31016).

¶23

Upon obtaining instructions, Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned

¶24

Deputy Solicitor General, concurs with the contention of learned counsel for

¶25

2/4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023

¶28

the appellant that the appellant was not put on notice by serving Form O-3 on the appellant.

¶29

In view of the above factual position, the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. As a corollary, the appellant is permitted to take necessary steps for the renewal of Trade Mark No.1249884. If an application for renewal is presented, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the rules framed thereunder.

¶30

The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

¶31

04.09.2023

¶32

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No rjr/hvk

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/4

¶35

(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023

¶36

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶37

rjr/hvk

¶38

To Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office, Intellectual Property Office Building, G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Tamil Nadu, India.

¶39

(T)CMA(TM)/62/2023 (OA/1/2017/TM/CH)

¶40

04.09.2023

¶41

4/4

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.S. Earthevents ( I) Private Limited v. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Earthevents ( I) Private Limited v. Assistant 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha Vs Sharp Tools

N.C.Nanu Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as sony Corporation Vs Walkman Rubber Industries

Helion Biotech Aps Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designss

M/s Sanit Gobain Glass France and another Vs M/s Csg Holding Company Ltd.

Infinitheism Spiritual Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Mr. N. Sivasankaran, Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks