S. Jagadeesan, J. (Chairman) - (1.) THE COD is to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi, the first respondent herein, dated 19.3.2004, dismissing the review petition filed by the applicant/appellant.
(2.) The applicant in the statement of grounds dated 2.8.2004 has stated that the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 19.3.2004 was dispatched with the covering letter dated 5.4.2004 to their counsel. The counsel communicated the applicant in the last week of June, 2004 about the order of the Assistant Registrar and on enquiry, the applicant was told that the said order was tacked in wrong file by the staff of the counsel and accidentally the same was traced in the last week of June, 2004, and immediately thereafter, the applicant was informed. The appeal along with the COD was filed in the Registry of this Board on 4.8.2004 and the delay is due to the late communication by the counsel. The respondent filed M.P. No.8/2005 denying the averments of the applicant in the statement of grounds and sought dismissal of the COD.
(3.) SHRI Amit Sindwani appearing for the applicant contended that the order was dispatched to the counsel on 5.4.2004 and the counsel could have received the same either on the 6.4.2004 or 7.4.2004. The counsel informed the applicant about the receipt of the order only in the last week of June, 2004 as he has misplaced the impugned order in some other file. Immediately on receipt of the information from the counsel, the appeal was filed with the petition for condoning the delay since the three months time prescribed under Section 91(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 expired. The delay is only due to the mis- placement of the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar by the counsel and as such, the delay is neither malafide nor deliberate.;