Decided on March 17,2006



S. Jagadeesan, Chairman - (1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated 20.7.2004 rejetting the opposition of the appellant on the ground that they failed to file the evidence in support of opposition within the period fixed under Rule 50 (1) as such by operation of law, the said opposition is deemed to have been abandoned under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 52 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (herein after referred to as the said Rules) framed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as the said Act).
(2.) The case was taken up for hearing on 23.2.2006. Learned Senior Counsel Shri P.S. Raman assisted by Shri P. Vinod Kumar appeared on behalf of the appellant and learned Counsel Shri Mugunthan appeared on behalf of the first respondent. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks has passed the impugned order on the ground that Rule 50(1) of the said Rule contemplates the filing of evidence within two months from service of the copy of counter statement or within such further period not exceeding one month on aggregate thereafter, as the registrar may on request allow, the opponent shall either leave with the registrar, such evidence by way of affidavit as he may desire to adduce.... The time stipulated under this Rule is mandatory and the opponent is bound to produce the evidence within the time prescribed under Rule 50(1).
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the appellant contended that the period prescribed under the said Rule cannot be said to be final and the Registrar has no power to extend the time or to receive the evidence produced at a later point of time. In the absence of any such specific prohibition under the statute, the Registrar is always vested with the discretion to extend the time.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.