S. Jagadeesan, J. (Chairman) - (1.) THE respondent herein had filed the appeal TA/100/2003 against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi. THE appeal was heard by the Appellate Board on 30.1.2004 in the absence of the applicant as well as their counsel. THE said appeal was allowed.
(2.) Now, the applicant has filed the review petition stating that the earlier counsel M/s. Aggarwal Associates withdrew from the brief and the applicant appointed Shri Rajiv Bansal, who inspected the Court records on 15.9.1998. After the matter was transferred to the Appellate Board, the applicant received the order dated 30.1.2004 under a cover letter dated 5.2.2004. Immediately on receipt of the copy of the order dated 30.1.2004, the applicant contacted its attorneys M/s. Trade Mark Registration Bureau, Calcutta, to inspect the records on the above matter. The inspection was accordingly done on 18.3.2004 and the Trade Mark attorneys sent their inspection report to the applicant on 22.3.2004. The present application for review was filed without any delay. The reason for review is that the counsel for the applicant was not informed about the hearing date and the signature found in the acknowledgment was not of the applicant and the same is an unidentified one which cannot be taken as a proof of service of notice of hearing on the applicant. As the applicant did not have any opportunity to put forth its case before the Appellate Board and the order of the Appellate Board dated 30.1.2004 being an ex-parte order, the same may be reviewed by recalling the said order. We have heard Ms. Aparajita Sinha for the applicant and Ms. Anjula Chopra for the respondent.
(3.) WE have perused the order of this Board dated 30.1.2004. At the outset, we have to state that the said order is not an ex-parte order and the matter had been decided on merits after hearing the counsel for the respondent.;