S. Jagadeesan, J. (Chairman) - (1.) THE appellant has filed these appeals aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, dated 13.5.2004, dismissing the three Review Petitions of the appellant against the consolidated order dated 20.11.2002.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order dated 20.11.2002 is an ex-parte order and hence the review petition has been filed to set aside the same since the applications of the first respondent for registration of its trade mark were rejected and the opposition of the appellant was rejected. It is the case of the appellant that in the Review petition, it was represented by counsel and the appellant's counsel was present on 9.3.2004, the date of hearing of the Review petition before the then Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. The Deputy Registrar was not available on that day and thereafter the matter was decided by the Assistant Registrar on 23.4.2004 without any notice to the appellant. Hence, the impugned order in the Review petition is also an ex-parte order and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and the Review petition must be restored on file by remitting the same to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh disposal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Review petition was dismissed on the ground that the same is beyond the purview of the limited scope of review and further, the notice was dispatched by the Registry which is clear from the statement of facts in the impugned order and as such, the service has to be presumed. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent had received the notice of hearing and appeared on 23.4.2004 and argued the matter. Hence, the story of non service of notice on the counsel for the appellant cannot be believed. Apart from that, he also contended that a perusal of the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks in the Review petition does not call for any interference as the Assistant Registrar dismissed the Review petition stating that the review sought for is to re-hear the matter afresh by setting aside the order dated 20.11.2002 which is not permitted under the law.;