Trademark removal for non-renewal requires reliable proof that the prescribed expiration notice was dispatched.

The petitioner applied for registration of the trademark “HMP” in Class 09 on 21 December 1998. The mark was published, registered under Certificate No. 269279 with effect from 21 December 1998, and subsequently renewed for ten years until 21 December 2015.

The petitioner claimed that he became aware only on 4 June 2025 that the mark was liable to be removed for non-renewal. He thereafter filed Form TM-R with the prescribed fee, but the Trade Marks Registry rejected it on 9 June 2025, stating that an O-3 notice had been served on the earlier attorney on 17 September 2015 and that the period for renewal had expired.

The petitioner contended that no statutory notice had been served upon him under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002.

The respondent relied on a purported O-3 notice and, pursuant to the Court’s order dated 4 February 2026, produced dispatch details to establish that the notice had been sent.

Whether the respondent had complied with Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 by duly dispatching and serving the O-3 notice concerning expiry and renewal of the petitioner’s trademark?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his fresh Form TM-R accepted and processed notwithstanding the earlier rejection on the ground of expiry of the renewal period?

The Court applied Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires the Registrar, before expiry of the trademark registration, to send the registered proprietor notice of the date of expiration and the conditions for renewal; it further permits removal only where the prescribed conditions are not complied with, subject to the statutory protection for an application made with the prescribed fee and surcharge within six months of expiry.

The Court also applied Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, which mandates written notice in Form O-3, between one and three months before expiry, to the registered proprietor at the address recorded in the Register or at the address for service in India.

Compliance with these provisions requires reliable proof that the prescribed notice was dispatched to the registered proprietor or the relevant recorded address.

Although the respondent produced a copy of the alleged O-3 notice and asserted that it had been sent to the petitioner’s earlier attorney, the dispatch details placed on record did not establish that the notice was actually dispatched by the Trade Marks Registry to the petitioner or otherwise served in accordance with Section 25(3) and Rule 64(1).

The Court therefore found that the respondent had not produced reliable evidence of statutory service. In the absence of proof of such notice, the Registry could not rely on the alleged expiry of the renewal period to reject the petitioner’s renewal request.

The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh Form TM-R for the trademark within two weeks, upon depositing the prescribed fee. The respondent was directed to accept and process the application in accordance with the Rules.