Trademark registration cannot be removed without mandatory Section 25(3) renewal notice to the proprietor.

The Petitioner applied for registration of the trademark “BLUE CHIP” in Class 03 on 21 July 1992.

The mark was registered on 3 August 2005 under Registration Certificate No. 405395, but the Petitioner asserted that the registration certificate was never received.

Since no renewal application was filed, the mark was shown as “Expired on 21.07.2002 & Removed” in Trade Marks Journal No. 1442 dated 16 June 2010.

Under the Right to Information Act, the Trade Marks Registry informed the Petitioner that registration had been granted in 2005 and that the physical records did not reveal whether the registration certificate or renewal notice had been dispatched.

The Petitioner therefore sought restoration of the registration and permission to file a renewal application.

Whether, under Rule 64(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, the Petitioner was entitled to renew the trademark within six months from the actual date of registration, since registration was granted after the renewal date had passed.

Whether removal of the trademark from the Register without serving the statutory renewal notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was legally sustainable.

Whether the trademark registration should be restored and the Petitioner permitted to file a belated renewal application.

The Court applied Rule 64(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, which permits renewal within six months from the actual date of registration where registration occurs after the renewal date, failing which the Registrar may remove the mark subject to Rule 66.

Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 makes service of a prescribed renewal notice—then Form O-2 and now Form O-3—a mandatory precondition to removal of a trademark for non-renewal.

Relying principally on Union of India v. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 828, and Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3860, the Court held that mere expiry or failure to apply for renewal does not ipso facto justify removal; the statutory notice procedure must first be strictly followed.

The Court also referred to Cipla Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Kleenage Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Gopal Ji Gupta v. Union of India, Promoshirt SM Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, and Vijay Kumar Salwani v. Union of India as authorities supporting restoration where Section 25(3) notice was not served.

The Court found that the mark was registered on 3 August 2005, long after the renewal date of 21 July 2002, thereby attracting Rule 64(3) and creating a six-month renewal window from the actual date of registration.

The Petitioner’s assertion that the registration certificate was never received remained uncontroverted, as the Registry could not trace dispatch records.

Consequently, the Petitioner could not reasonably be faulted for failing to seek renewal within the statutory window.

Independently, the Court held that the Respondent had not served Form O-2 before removing the mark.

Since service of that notice is a mandatory statutory precondition under Section 25(3), the removal was procedurally invalid, regardless of the lapse in filing the renewal application.

The Court directed the Respondent to restore and reinstate the registration of “BLUE CHIP”, under Application No. 577478 in Class 03, in favour of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was permitted to file the renewal application, pay the prescribed fees, and complete all requisite formalities within six weeks from 4 August 2026.

Upon completion of the formalities, the Respondent was directed to consider and, if the application was otherwise in order, renew the registration within three months.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.