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

The petitioner’s predecessor, Ram Kumar Gupta, was the registered proprietor of the trademark ODEON, Registration No. 483044, in Class 11.

The mark was registered from 21 December 1987 to 21 December 1994 and subsequently renewed up to 21 December 2008.

After the predecessor’s death, the petitioner filed Form TM-24 on 30 October 2001 seeking transfer of the mark in his name.

The petitioner alleged that the Registrar did not issue the prescribed Form O-3 renewal notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Consequently, he did not file renewal applications or pay the requisite fees, and the mark was subsequently reflected as “removed” from the Register.

The petitioner filed an interlocutory application for renewal on 4 February 2019 and thereafter issued several reminders, but no action was taken.

He approached the High Court seeking restoration of the registration or, alternatively, permission to apply for renewal.

The Registrar defended the removal on the ground that no renewal application had been filed and also objected to the petition on the ground of delay.

Whether the Registrar could remove the trademark from the Register without first issuing the mandatory Form O-3 notice contemplated by Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the trademark and an opportunity to file a renewal application despite the delay in approaching the Court.

What consequential directions should be issued concerning renewal of the trademark.

The Court applied Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires the Registrar, before expiry of the registration, to send notice in the prescribed manner to the registered proprietor specifying the date of expiry and the conditions for renewal; removal is permissible only if those conditions remain unfulfilled after the prescribed period.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 828, holding that issuance of the renewal notice is a mandatory precondition to removal and that failure to apply for renewal alone does not justify removal.

It further followed Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3860, and other consistent authorities, including Vijay Kumar Salwani v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 9270/2015, which establish that mere expiry or non-renewal does not ipso facto authorise removal without strict compliance with Section 25(3) and Form O-3 requirements.

The Court found that the Registrar could not deny that Form O-3 notice had not been sent to the petitioner before removal of the mark.

Since the statutory notice was a condition precedent to removal, the Registrar’s failure to issue it rendered the removal legally untenable, irrespective of the petitioner’s failure to submit a renewal application or pay the prescribed fees.

Applying the reasoning in Malhotra Book Depot and Rakesh Kumar Mittal, the Court held that the petitioner could not be faulted for non-renewal when the statutory notice intended to trigger the renewal process had not been served.

The delay objection was also rejected because the petitioner had not received the mandatory notice and had pursued the matter through an interlocutory application and repeated reminders.

The Respondent was directed to restore and reinstate the registration.

The petitioner was permitted to file the renewal application with the prescribed fees and complete all requisite formalities within six weeks.

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

The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.