Prabha Sridevan, Chairman - (1.) ON 5th June 2013 we issued directions to the Registry to number this appeal and the order was sent to the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai seeking their response to several questions. The Trade Marks Registry have replied. From this reply, it is evident that in spite of filing TM -16 indicating change of counsel, the respondent had served the notice of opposition to the erstwhile counsel on record. Therefore, the submissions made by the counsel that the notice of opposition was not served on them is correct. The appellant has admittedly come to know about the impugned order only on 31st May 2012 and the appeal has been filed within three months thereafter. The order passed by us on 5th June 2012 is as follows: - "This is an appeal against an order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks treating the appellants mark 573199 in Class 60 as abandoned.
(2.) THE narration of events in this case will bring light to the lack of transparency, the failure on the part of the Trade Mark Registry to respond to letters from the counsel and absence of internal communication within the Registry itself regarding the developments in the registration proceedings; all leading to miscarriage of justice. The appellant applied for the mark WATERMAN on 14th May, 1992 as a proposed to be used mark to be associated with No.147630. The advertisement on 08.01.2001 in the Trade Marks Journal, indicated that the registration will give no right to the exclusive use of the letter W' except as substantially shown in the representation.
(3.) ON 02.03.2001, the second respondent herein filed the Notice of Opposition. According to the documents in the Paper Book, on 1st June, 2004 the counsel for the appellant addressed a letter to the Registrar of Trade Marks stating that they learnt from the Trade Mark Journal that their mark had been opposed and that three years have elapsed, till that date, they have not received the copy of the Notice of opposition. They had already filed a TM -16 on 15.05. 2001 to bring on record their address and the copy of the TM -16 was enclosed for easy reference. According to the documents filed in the Paper Book, on July 23rd, 2008, they again addressed the Registrar of Trade Marks stating that the recent check up of the application on the Online status facility indicated the application is abandoned. It stated that no notice for abandonment has been received, Notice of Opposition was never served and therefore, the abandonment was wrong. They requested immediate steps to be taken to restore the application and the Registrar was requested to process the file and re -set the matter.;