M/S Kumar Equipments (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr.

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010292162026
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026, I.A. 17522/2026 & I.A. 17523/2026
M/S KUMAR EQUIPMENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Utkarsh Gupta, Mr. Sanidhya
Sharma and Ms. Sanandika,
Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Barathi, SPC, Ms. Khushi
Nagrath, Ms. Manvi Goyal and Mr.
Debashish Mishra, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Ajay Sahni and Mr. Mohit Maru,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL )
INTRODUCTION
1. The present Appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
(“ Act ”) read with Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (“ Rules ”) has
been preferred against the order dated 18.05.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”)
passed by Respondent No. 1 - the learned Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby
the review petition dated 25.12.2025 (“ Review Petition ”) filed by
Respondent No. 2 - KEI Industries Limited, under Section 127(c) of the Act
was allowed and the order dated 16.10.2025 (“ Abandonment Order ”) was
set aside. By the Abandonment Order, Opposition No. 1294426
(“ Opposition ”) filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellant’s Trade
Mark Application No. 5038776 (“ Subject Application ”) for the mark ‘KEI-
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

KUMAR EQUIPMENT INDIA’ (“ Appellant’s Mark ”) in Class 11 had been
treated as abandoned under Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 45(2) of the
Rules.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. On 10.07.2021, the Appellant filed the Subject Application for the
registration of the Appellant’s Mark for the goods pertaining to ‘electric
cooking utensils’ in Class 11. Respondent No. 1 issued an Examination
Report dated 19.07.2021, and the Subject Application was thereafter
advertised.
3. On 29.03.2024, Respondent No. 2 filed the Opposition, alleging that
the Appellant’s Mark is deceptively similar to its registered mark ‘KEI’
(“ Respondent No. 2’s Mark ”). The Appellant received the notice of
opposition on 08.04.2024 and filed its counter statement on 16.04.2024
(“ Counter Statement ”).
4. As per the record of Respondent No. 1, a copy of the Counter Statement
was dispatched on 26.04.2024 to Mr. Pallav Palit of Palit & Co., the attorney
on record for Respondent No. 2, as well as to Respondent No. 2 at its address
at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. The period of two months under
Rule 45(1) of the Rules for Respondent No. 2 to file evidence in support of
the Opposition expired on 26.06.2024. Respondent No. 2 did not file any
evidence or any intimation of reliance on the facts stated in the notice of
opposition within that period.
5. Respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a hearing notice dated 25.08.2025,
addressed to the attorney on record for Respondent No. 2 as well as to
Respondent No. 2, fixing the matter for hearing. When the matter was taken
up for hearing on 16.10.2025, Respondent No. 2 did not appear. By the
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

Abandonment Order, Respondent No. 1 held that, as neither any evidence in
support of the Opposition nor any statement of reliance on the facts stated in
the notice of opposition had been filed within the prescribed time, the
Opposition was deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the
Rules, and directed that the Subject Application shall proceed further as per
the Rules. The Certificate of Registration was issued to the Appellant on the
same date. Copies of the Abandonment Order were dispatched on 25.11.2025,
including to the attorney on record for Respondent No. 2 and to Respondent
No. 2.
6. Respondent No. 2, through its new attorney, filed the Review Petition
seeking recall of the Abandonment Order. In the Review Petition, Respondent
No. 2 contended that neither the Counter Statement nor any hearing notice
had been received by Respondent No. 2 or its previous attorney, Mr. Pallav
Palit, and stated that an affidavit sworn by Mr. Pallav Palit affirming such
non-receipt was being filed along with the Review Petition. The Affidavit
dated 19.01.2026 of Mr. Sagar Gupta, Manager (Legal & Secretarial) of
Respondent No. 2 stated that the Counter Statement was not received by
Respondent No. 2 from the Trade Marks Registry and that Respondent No. 2
was never informed of its service by the erstwhile attorney.
7. The Appellant opposed the Review Petition. After hearing the Parties
on 05.05.2026, Respondent No. 1 permitted the Parties to file written
submissions, which were filed on 09.05.2026 and 11.05.2026, respectively.
8. By the Impugned Order, Respondent No. 1 observed that, upon perusal
of the record, it was verified that the Counter Statement was dispatched and
served on the attorney on record, however, came to conclusion that it was not
possible to determine whether service was complete as service is deemed
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

complete only when the recipient receives the communication. Relying on the
affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 regarding the breakdown of
communication with its previous attorney and on Rafiq v. Munshilal , (1981)
2 SCC 788, Respondent No. 1 allowed the Review Petition, set aside the
Abandonment Order and granted Respondent No. 2 an opportunity to file its
evidence under Rule 45 of the Rules within two months from the receipt of
the Impugned Order. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the
present Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant made the following
submissions:
9.1. Rule 45(1) of the Rules requires the opponent, within two
months of service of the counter statement, to file affidavit
evidence supporting the opposition or intimate its reliance on the
facts pleaded in the notice of opposition. Under Rule 45(2) of the
Rules, failure to act within that period results in deemed
abandonment. The provision is mandatory and admits of no
exception or discretion.
9.2. Unlike Rule 50 of the erstwhile Trade Marks Rules, 2002, which
permitted a one-month extension on an application in Form TM-
56, Rule 45 of the Rules provides no extension, which is a
deliberate omission reflecting the legislative intent to enforce the
two-month limit and prevent delay in opposition proceedings.
Respondent No. 1 has no discretion to condone delay in filing
evidence.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

9.3. Respondent No. 1’s electronic records establish that the Counter
Statement was dispatched and served on Respondent No. 2 and
its attorney, Mr. Pallav Palit, on 26.04.2024. Respondent No. 2
neither filed evidence by 26.06.2024 nor sought an extension.
Despite service of the hearing notice on both, Respondent No. 2
failed to appear. The Opposition thus stood abandoned by
operation of law and the Abandonment Order merely recorded
that consequence.
9.4. The limited review power under Section 127(c) of the Act cannot
reopen concluded proceedings or condone a statutory default
resulting in deemed abandonment under Rule 45(2) of the Rules.
As the Abandonment Order involved no clerical or procedural
error, Respondent No. 1 lacked jurisdiction to review it.
Permitting review would enable opponents to circumvent Rule
45 by changing counsel and advancing fresh averments.
9.5. In the Review Petition, Respondent No. 2 categorically denied
receipt of the Counter Statement by itself or its attorney through
e-mail, post or any other mode. However, subsequently,
Respondent No. 2 attributed the default to its erstwhile attorney’s
failure to inform it of service. These contradictory pleas amount
to approbation and reprobation. The Impugned Order accepts
both without resolving the inconsistency.
9.6. Although the Review Petition stated that Mr. Pallav Palit’s
affidavit affirming non-receipt of the Counter Statement and
hearing notice was being filed, the affidavit on record was sworn
by Mr. Sagar Gupta, a manager of Respondent No. 2. The
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

Impugned Order overlooks this discrepancy. Mr. Pallav Palit’s
continued representation of Respondent No. 2 before this Court
in other matters of Respondent No. 2 also belies the plea that his
incompetence or negligence caused the default.
9.7. Respondent No. 2 relied before Respondent No. 1 on Rafiq
( supra ) to contend that a litigant should not suffer for its
advocate’s mistakes. That principle concerns procedural lapses
by counsel, not a party’s failure to monitor proceedings or cases
where the advocate remains engaged. It cannot override the
mandatory timeline under Rule 45 of the Rules.
9.8. The Review Petition was filed on 25.12.2025, after the
Abandonment Order attained finality and the Appellant’s Mark
was registered. The Impugned Order is non-speaking, fails to
address the Appellant’s detailed submissions and divests the
Appellant of the right accrued under the Abandonment Order.
9.9. The Appellant’s Mark is composite, with ‘KEI’ denoting ‘Kumar
Equipment India’, the Appellant’s name. Respondent No. 2
primarily deals in wires and cables, and the Parties’ goods and
trade channels are distinct. Respondent No. 2’s Class 11
Application No. 3693722 is itself opposed by a third party.
9.10. Accordingly, the Impugned Order ought to be set aside, and the
Abandonment Order and the Appellant’s registration restored.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1
10. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that Respondent No.
1 has filed its Reply to the Appeal supporting the case of the Appellant. The
relevant portions of the Reply filed by Respondent No. 1 read as under:
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

“That the impugned order dated 18.05.2026 was passed upon
consideration of the review petition filed under Section 127(c) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999, the material available on record and the
submissions of the parties. The present Appeal raises the question
whether the order could properly reopen the opposition after the
prescribed period for filing evidence had expired and the opposition
had been treated as abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks
Rules, 2017.
That the Appellant had filed Trademark Application No. 5038776 for
the mark “KEI-KUMAR EQUIPMENT INDIA” under Class 11,
against which Respondent No. 2 filed Opposition No. 1294426. The
Counter Statement was dispatched to the attorney on record for
Respondent No. 2 on 26.04.2024, at the address for service reflected
in the Registry record.
That the period prescribed for filing evidence in support of the
opposition under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 expired on
26.06.2024. No evidence was filed within that period and the
opposition proceedings were accordingly treated as abandoned
under Rule 45(2), by order dated 16.10.2025.
That Respondent No. 2 filed a review petition under Section 127(c) of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking recall of the order dated
16.10.2025, whereby the opposition proceedings had been treated as
abandoned under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with
Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for failure to file evidence
within the prescribed period.
That in the review petition Respondent No. 2 contended that it had not
received the Counter Statement by email or post and had not been
made aware of the consequential time period for filing evidence. It
attributed the alleged failure to its erstwhile attorney, who, according
to Respondent No. 2, had not communicated the Counter Statement
or the status of the proceedings.
That Respondent No. 2 further stated that it learnt of the matter only
upon an internal review or audit and the subsequent engagement of
new counsel, and placed an affidavit explaining the alleged
communication gap with its erstwhile representative.
That the Registry record reflected that the Counter Statement had been
dispatched to the attorney on record for Respondent No. 2 on
26.04.2024 at the address for service available in the proceedings.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

Once a communication is duly addressed and dispatched to the address
for service furnished and maintained on the Registry record, the
service requirement is satisfied; the Rules do not make service
contingent upon proof of actual receipt or an acknowledgment by the
party. The absence of material conclusively establishing personal
receipt by Respondent No. 2 therefore did not, by itself, negate service
recorded by the Registry.
That the change of counsel and the alleged failure of the erstwhile
attorney to communicate the proceedings were matters between
Respondent No. 2 and its representative. Respondent No. 2 had chosen
and appointed that representative for the opposition proceedings. In
the absence of a demonstrated failure of service by the Registry or
other sufficient cause attributable to the Registry, an alleged
communication lapse within the party's own representation could not
displace the consequence that followed from non-filing of evidence
within the prescribed period. The order dated 18.05.2026 therefore
erred in treating that explanation as sufficient to reopen the opposition.
That the order dated 18.05.2026 did not adjudicate upon the
substantive merits of the opposition. The present challenge concerns
the procedural decision to recall the abandonment order and restore
the opposition; the merits of the competing trademarks need not be
determined for deciding this Appeal.
That the review petition was considered on the basis of the Registry
record, the submissions of both parties and the explanation furnished
by Respondent No. 2. However, the record showed dispatch of the
Counter Statement to the attorney on record. The question of actual
knowledge by Respondent No. 2 itself was not the test for service at the
address maintained for that purpose. In those circumstances, the
absence of conclusive proof of personal receipt did not justify setting
aside the consequence of non-filing of evidence within the prescribed
period.
That by the order dated 18.05.2026, the review petition was allowed,
the order dated 16.10.2025 was set aside and Respondent No. 2 was
granted a further opportunity to file evidence under Rule 45 within
two months. Since the Counter Statement had been dispatched to the
attorney on record and the period for filing evidence had expired
without evidence being filed, the restoration of the opposition was not
warranted on the grounds recorded in the review order.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

That, for the reasons stated above, the impugned review order dated
18.05.2026 warrants interference. The record reflected dispatch of
the Counter Statement to the address for service of the attorney on
record; the prescribed period for evidence expired without any
evidence being filed; and the explanation offered concerned
communication between Respondent No. 2 and its former attorney.
The order dated 16.10.2025 treating the opposition as abandoned
under Rule 45(2) ought therefore to be restored. The submissions
herein concern the procedural history and do not invite adjudication
of the substantive merits of the competing marks.”
11. Respondent No. 1 has accordingly prayed as under:
“PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Allow the present Appeal;
b. set aside the order dated 18.05.2026 and restore the order dated
16.10.2025, whereby Opposition No. 1294426 was treated as
abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017; and
c. pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
12. In view of the above, learned SPC for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
the present Appeal be allowed and Impugned Order be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2
13. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 made the following
submissions:
13.1. Abandonment under Rule 45(2) of the Rules does not
automatically entitle an application to registration. Reliance was
placed on Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky
Association and Others to emphasise the purity of the register and
public interest. The notice of opposition recorded Respondent No.
2’s registrations in Classes 6, 9, 16, 35, 37, 42, etc., including its
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

earliest Class 9 registration bearing No. 498435 dated 27.09.1988,
and Respondent No. 1 the declaration of the Respondent No. 2’s
Mark as well-known vide order dated 19.02.2024.
13.2. Respondent No. 2’s Class 11 Application Nos. 3693719 and
3693722 dated 04.12.2017 were pending when the Subject
Application was filed but were not cited as conflicting marks in
the Examination Report dated 19.07.2021. This violated Rule 33
of the Rules read with Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the
Subject Application could not proceed to advertisement or
registration.
13.3. An opposed application may proceed to registration only upon a
decision in the applicant’s favour. The non-speaking
Abandonment Order resolved none of the issues raised in the
Opposition and could not warrant registration. Although Section
91 of the Act prescribes three months for an appeal, the Certificate
of Registration was issued on the date of the Abandonment Order,
which was dispatched only on 25.11.2025.
13.4. Although the dispatch notice dated 26.04.2024 names
Respondent No. 2 and its then attorney with their postal
addresses, Respondent No. 2 neither received the Counter
Statement nor was informed of it by its attorney. Without service,
the period under Rule 45(1) of the Rules did not commence, no
obligation to file evidence arose, and Rule 45(2) could not apply.
Respondent No. 2 likewise did not receive the hearing notice
dated 25.08.2025 and consequently could not attend the hearing
on 16.10.2025.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

13.5. The erstwhile attorney is no longer authorised to represent
Respondent No. 2 in the Opposition; his engagement in other
proceedings is irrelevant. As he was reluctant to furnish an
affidavit of non-receipt, the Review Petition was accompanied
by the manager’s affidavit affirming non-receipt of Respondent
No. 1’s communications. Respondent No. 2 has advanced no
inconsistent pleas.
13.6. The Impugned Order rightly holds that a party should not suffer
for counsel’s mistake, particularly where deceptively similar
trade marks are involved. It causes no prejudice to the Appellant,
merely permitting Respondent No. 2 to file evidence and contest
the Opposition on merits. Respondent No. 2 has since filed its
evidence and consents to time-bound adjudication by
Respondent No. 1.
13.7. The mandatory character of Rule 45 of the Rules is pending
adjudication before the Supreme Court in Black Diamond
Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr. ,
SLP(C) No. 26470/2026. By order dated 24.08.2026, the
Supreme Court issued notice in view of conflicting High Court
decisions and stayed the rectification proceedings before the
Bombay High Court. Although this Court has held Rule 45
mandatory in several decisions, it does not apply where the
opponent never received the counter statement.
13.8. The Appellant’s documents evidencing use of the Appellant’s
Mark, including client appreciation letters, awards, certificates
of gratitude and its Chartered Accountant’s certificates, etc. were
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

not filed before Respondent No. 1 and have been introduced in
this Appeal without leave. Being outside the record before
Respondent No. 1, they cannot support the challenge to the
Impugned Order and ought to be disregarded.
13.9. Accordingly, the Appeal ought to be dismissed with costs.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
14. The question arising for consideration in this Appeal is whether
Respondent No. 1, in exercise of its power of review under Section 127(c) of
the Act, could recall the Abandonment Order and afford Respondent No. 2 a
further opportunity to file evidence after the Opposition stood abandoned
under Rule 45(2) of the Rules.
15. Section 21 of the Act prescribes the procedure governing opposition to
registration. Under Section 21(3) of the Act, upon the filing of a counter
statement by the applicant, the Registrar is required to serve a copy thereof on
the opponent. Section 21(4) of the Act requires the evidence relied upon by
the opponent and the applicant to be submitted to the Registrar in the
prescribed manner and within the prescribed period. In respect of the
opponent, these requirements are prescribed by Rule 45 of the Rules. Rule
45(1) of the Rules requires the opponent, within two months of service of a
copy of the counter statement, either to file affidavit evidence in support of
the opposition or to intimate the Registrar and the applicant in writing of its
intention to rely on the facts stated in the notice of opposition. Under Rule
45(2) of the Rules, an opponent who takes neither step within the prescribed
period is deemed to have abandoned its opposition.
16. Section 21(3) of the Act imposes a duty upon the Registrar to serve a
copy of the counter statement on the opponent, and the two-month period
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

prescribed by Rule 45(1) of the Rules commences upon such service. Section
21 of the Act, read with Rule 45(2) of the Rules, thus provides for deemed
abandonment where the opponent fails to take the prescribed action within
two months of service. The Rules contain no provision for extension of this
period, and Respondent No. 2 acknowledges that this Court has construed
Rule 45 of the Rules as mandatory. The issue, therefore, is whether
Respondent No. 1 duly discharged its obligation to serve the Counter
Statement on Respondent No. 2.
17. The dispatch notice dated 26.04.2024, as per the records of Respondent
No. 1 records that the Counter Statement was dispatched to Mr. Pallav Palit
of Palit & Co., the attorney on record of Respondent No. 2, which is not
disputed by Respondent No. 2.
18. The Impugned Order expressly records that, upon examination of the
record, the Counter Statement was found to have been dispatched and served
on the attorney on record. Notwithstanding that finding, Respondent No. 1
proceeded on the premise that service is complete only upon actual receipt by
Respondent No. 2. This premise is inconsistent with Respondent No. 1’s stand
before this Court that the Rules do not condition service upon proof of actual
receipt or acknowledgment by the party.
19. The explanation advanced by Respondent No. 2 does not rebut the service
recorded by Respondent No. 1. In the Review Petition, Respondent No. 2 asserted
that neither it nor its previous attorney had received the Counter Statement, while
attributing the default to the attorney’s failure to inform it of such service. Both
assertions appear in Mr. Sagar Gupta’s affidavit dated 19.01.2026. Although the
Review Petition stated that an affidavit of the previous attorney affirming non-
receipt was being filed, no such affidavit was placed on record.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

20. Respondent No. 2 has acknowledged that the previous attorney was
reluctant to furnish the Affidavit, which compels this Court to draw an adverse
inference that there is no material available with the said attorney on record
disputing receipt. A failure of communication between a party and the attorney
appointed to conduct its opposition proceedings cannot amount to non-service.
The same reasoning applies to the hearing notice dated 25.08.2025.
21. The principle that a litigant ought not to suffer for its counsel’s default,
invoked by Respondent No. 2 in reliance on Rafiq ( supra ), cannot be applied to
override a statutory deeming provision. Upon expiry of the two-month period
under Rule 45(1) of the Rules on 26.06.2024 without the prescribed action by
Respondent No. 2, the Opposition stood abandoned by operation of Rule 45(2)
of the Rules. The Abandonment Order merely recorded that statutory
consequence.
22. The power of review under Section 127(c) of the Act cannot be exercised
to grant an opponent additional time that the Rules do not permit. The Impugned
Order effectively extended the period for filing evidence by nearly two years
beyond the prescribed deadline, which is impermissible.
23. The pendency of the question before the Supreme Court in Black
Diamond Motors ( supra ) does not advance Respondent No. 2’s case. As
Respondent No. 2 has itself stated, the Supreme Court has issued notice and
stayed the rectification proceedings pending before the Bombay High Court in
that matter.
24. Respondent No. 2’s contention that abandonment of the Opposition could
not result in registration of the Appellant’s Mark is without merit. Section 23(1)
of the Act provides that, where an application has been accepted and either
remains unopposed upon expiry of the opposition period or the opposition has
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

been decided in the applicant’s favour, the Registrar shall, unless otherwise
directed by the Central Government, register the trade mark within eighteen
months of the filing of the application.
25. Section 23 of the Act, read with Rule 45(2) of the Rules, establishes
that, upon deemed abandonment, no opposition remains for adjudication. The
application, having already been examined, accepted and advertised, must
accordingly proceed to registration, and the Registrar is obliged to register the
trade mark. Respondent No. 2’s objection concerning the non-citation of its
prior applications in the Examination Report pertains to the examination of
the Subject Application, which concluded before advertisement. That
objection cannot be re-agitated through review of the Abandonment Order.
26. Respondent No. 1 has also supported the Appellant’s case in its Reply
to the Appeal, submitting that the Impugned Order warrants interference on
the ground that the Counter Statement was dispatched to the address for
service of the attorney on record. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 has sought
allowance of the present Appeal and restoration of the Abandonment Order
under Rule 45(2) of the Rules. In view of Respondent No. 1’s own prayer for
setting aside the Impugned Order, the same cannot be sustained.
27. In any event, Respondent No. 2 is not without recourse. It remains open
to Respondent No. 2 to institute a rectification petition under Section 57 of the
Act on grounds concerning the similarity of the marks, the well-known status of
its Mark, its prior registrations and pending applications. Accordingly, its
concerns regarding the purity of the Register may be addressed through the
remedy available under the Act.
28. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order dated
18.05.2026 is set aside, and the Abandonment Order dated 16.10.2025 is
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19

restored. Consequently, the registration granted to the Appellant in respect of
the Subject Application pursuant to the Abandonment Order stands restored.
Respondent No. 1 is directed to make the requisite entries in the Register of
Trade Marks. The evidence filed by Respondent No. 2 pursuant to the
Impugned Order shall not be taken on record.
29. It is clarified that nothing in this Order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the Parties’ rival claims, including the
similarity of the marks, the prior adoption and use of their respective marks,
or the well-known status of Respondent No. 2’s Mark. All rights and
contentions of the Parties are expressly kept open. Respondent No. 2 shall be
at liberty to avail itself of such legal remedies as may be available in
accordance with law.
30. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the Office
of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks at the e-mail
address – [email protected] for requisite compliance.
31. The present Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending
applications also stand disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
Sz
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 41/2026 Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
17:23:19