Registrar cannot declare a trademark application abandoned based on objections not previously raised in the Examination Report.

The Appellant, a USA-based entity, applied for the registration of the trademark “FISCHBEIN” in Class 07 (Application No. 5390410) on March 30, 2022, claiming user since December 31, 1989.

The Examination Report dated May 31, 2022, raised a solitary objection under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, citing a conflicting mark held by one Mr. Naresh Behl.

While the Appellant had previously sought adjournments, it requested a further extension on February 20, 2025.

On April 17, 2025, the Registrar passed the impugned order declaring the application "abandoned" on the grounds that no one appeared and the evidence produced was unsatisfactory to prove the 1985 user claim, noting that the invoices were in the name of a different entity.

The Appellant challenged this order as a violation of natural justice.

Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks can treat an application as abandoned based on objections (unsatisfactory evidence of user) that were never raised in the initial Examination Report.

Whether the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the Appellant an opportunity to clarify discrepancies regarding entity names and assignments.

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding relative grounds for refusal of registration.

It relied on the fundamental Principles of Natural Justice, which mandate that an applicant must be put on notice regarding all adverse objections to allow for a fair response.

The court also considered Section 91 of the Act regarding the maintainability of appeals against the Registrar’s orders.

The Court observed that the Examination Report exclusively cited Section 11(1) relating to trademark similarity.

However, the Registrar’s final order introduced entirely new grounds for rejection—namely, the inadequacy of user evidence and the discrepancy between the name of the applicant and the name on the invoices.

The Court reasoned that it is the "bounden duty" of the Trade Marks Office to communicate all objections to an applicant; an applicant cannot be expected to provide clarifications for points never raised.

While acknowledging the Appellant’s history of seeking multiple adjournments, the Court held that such conduct does not absolve the Registrar of the requirement to follow due process and natural justice.

Since the Appellant was never notified that its proof of user was considered deficient, the finding of "abandonment" was deemed procedurally flawed.

The Court set aside the order dated April 17, 2025, and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.

The Registrar was directed to issue a fresh hearing notice specifying all grounds of objection, allow the Appellant to file supplemental documents (including assignment/merger deeds), and pass a speaking order within four months.

No costs were awarded.