Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Motwane Private Ltd., had registered three trade marks under Nos. 312470, 312472, and 312473, which were renewed up to 17 February 1983. Thereafter, the petitioner inadvertently failed to renew the marks, but they continued to appear as registered on the Trade Marks Registry's website. In August 2023, the petitioner discovered the non-renewal and also learned that no notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 had been issued by the Registrar regarding removal of the marks. The petitioner filed RTI applications confirming that no removal notice was issued. When the petitioner attempted to apply for renewal online, the system rejected the application stating 'Application cannot be renewed (delay of more than one year)'. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of prohibition restraining the Registrar from removing the marks and a direction to accept the renewal applications. The court held that the notice under Section 25(3) is mandatory and its non-issuance means the marks have not been validly removed from the register. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to apply for renewal, and the Registrar must accept the applications and process them in accordance with law. The court directed the Registrar to accept the renewal applications within two weeks and consider them on merits, without being influenced by the delay.
Headnote
A) Trade Marks - Renewal of Registration - Section 25 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Mandatory Notice - The court considered whether the Registrar can remove a trade mark for non-renewal without issuing the notice under Section 25(3). Held that the notice under Section 25(3) is mandatory and failure to issue it renders the removal invalid; the mark continues on the register and the proprietor is entitled to apply for renewal. (Paras 1-14) B) Trade Marks - Delay in Renewal - Section 25 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Condonation of Delay - The court examined whether a trade mark proprietor can seek renewal after a long delay when no notice of removal was given. Held that since the mark remained on the register and no notice was issued, the delay is not a bar; the Registrar must accept the renewal application and process it in accordance with law. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks can remove a trade mark from the register for non-renewal without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the petitioner is entitled to seek renewal of its trade marks despite the delay.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition. It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept the petitioner's renewal applications for the three trade marks within two weeks from the date of the order and to process them in accordance with law, without being influenced by the delay. The court held that the notice under Section 25(3) is mandatory and its non-issuance means the marks have not been validly removed.
Law Points
- Renewal of trade marks
- Section 25 Trade Marks Act 1999
- Notice under Section 25(3)
- Removal of trade marks
- Delay in renewal
- Mandatory notice
- Right to be heard
- Article 226 Constitution of India
