Statutory timelines for filing evidence in trademark opposition are mandatory with no discretionary power to condone delay.

The Appellant (IBM) applied for the registration of the mark ‘TIVOLI’ in Class 42 in 2003.

Respondent No. 1 filed an opposition in 2006 based on its prior use of ‘TIVOLI GARDENS’.

After significant delays, the Registry served the Appellant's Counter Statement on Respondent No. 1 on 08.07.2019 (dispatched 07.08.2019), stipulating a two-month deadline to file evidence.

Respondent No. 1 failed to file evidence within the prescribed period, later claiming non-receipt of the notice and blaming its erstwhile counsel.

In 2022, Respondent No. 1 filed an Interlocutory Petition seeking condonation of delay.

The Assistant Registrar allowed the petition on 23.04.2025 ("Impugned Order"), placing the late evidence on record.

IBM appealed, contending the opposition had reached a stage of "deemed abandonment" by operation of law.

Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks has the statutory discretion to condone a delay in filing evidence in support of an opposition beyond the prescribed two-month period under the Trade Marks Rules.

Whether the negligence or lack of communication by a litigant's counsel constitutes a valid legal ground to bypass mandatory procedural timelines.

The Court applied Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (and the corresponding Rule 50 of the 2002 Rules), which mandates that evidence must be filed within two months of receiving the counter-statement, failing which the opposition is "deemed to have been abandoned".

It relied on *Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v. Dabur India Ltd*, which established that the Registrar has no discretion to extend this non-extendable timeline.

The Court further applied Rule 18 of the 2017 Rules regarding the proof of service by post.

Regarding the conduct of parties, the Court cited *Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash* and *Nitin Mahadeo Jawale v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mukte*, which hold that a litigant must be vigilant and cannot escape the consequences of inordinate delay by merely blaming their advocate.

The Court found that the Trade Marks Registry had sufficiently proven service of the Counter Statement via the Dispatch Register and Excel sheets addressed to Respondent No. 1’s authorized agents.

Under the statutory framework of both the 2002 and 2017 Rules, the two-month period for filing evidence is a maximum limit; the absence of the phrase "unless the Registrar otherwise directs" signifies a lack of discretionary power to condone delays.

The Court observed that Respondent No. 1 exhibited a pattern of procedural disregard and lacked "due diligence," only acting after a show-cause notice was issued in 2022.

Applying the principle that "deemed abandonment" occurs automatically by operation of law once the deadline expires, the Court reasoned that the Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by reviving an opposition that had already stood abandoned since 2019.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Impugned Order dated 23.04.2025, effectively dismissing the opposition filed by Respondent No. 1.

The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with the judgment.