N.D.Kasthuri, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of an Interlocutory Petition filed on 12th April, 2005 by M/s The Polo/Lauren Company, L.P., a Limited Partnership organised and existing under the laws of the State of New York, United States of America, of 650 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents/Petitioner). The case came up for hearing before me on 28th September, 2005. The brief facts of the case are - -
(2.) THE opposition under No. MAS -111156 has been filed by M/s The Polo/Lauren Company, L.P., a Limited Partnership organised and existing under the laws of the State of New York, United States of America, of 650 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the Opponents/Petitioner) on 28.7.2003 to oppose the registration of trade mark "C&C Classic Polo" (label) applied for by the Applicants under Application No. 889702 in class 25. The Applicants filed counter statement on 9.2.2004 and thereafter, the Opponents filed form TM -56 requesting extension of time upto 22.6.2004 for filing evidence in support of opposition. The same was allowed on a last chance. The Opponents informed this office vide their letter dated 21.6.2004 that they would like to rely on the facts stated in the notice of opposition. In view of the above, the evidence under Rule 50 stage was treated as closed and Applicants were called upon to file evidence in support of application under Rule 51 and communicated to both the parties vide this office letter Nos. TOP/4569 & 4570 dated 28.7.2004. The Applicants filed their evidence in support of application under Rule 51 within prescribed time & Opponents also filed evidence in reply under Rule 52 within extended time. The evidence stage was treated as closed and matter was set down for hearing and communicated to both the parties vide this office letter Nos. TOP/159 & 160 dated 4.4.2005. On 12th April, 2005, the Opponents have filed an Interlocutory Petition for taking evidence in support of opposition on record. The said evidence is filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. David Brown along with exhibits. 3. The Opponents Counsel submitted that the delay in filing evidence in support of opposition is twelve months from the date of receipt of the Counter Statement and ten months from expiry of the three months statutory period of filing evidence. They have also submitted that this delay is reasonable by all accounts and cannot be attributed to any negligence on the Opponent's part especially considering the voluminous documentary evidence sought to be placed on record by the Opponent and they have also submitted that the evidence filed by the Opponents is voluminous, cogent and convincing and deserves to admitted in order to allow for a fair evaluation of the matter on merits. The Opponents after lapse of 10 months filed the Interlocutory Petition in this office on 12th April, 2005 along with evidence in support of opposition by way of an affidavit of Mr. David R. Brown with exhibits. In the Interlocutory Petition Opponents requested that the evidence in support of opposition be taken on record. No doubt there is a delay of 10 months after filing evidence in support of application & evidence in reply under Rule 51 & Rule 52 for filing an Interlocutory Petition at this belated stage and there is some justifiable reason mentioned in the Interlocutory Petition by the Opponents. It is true that the Opponents have not filed the evidence within the extended time according to them. Now, the Opponents have come forward with the Interlocutory Petition seeking permission to take on record the evidence in support of opposition by way of an affidavit of Mr. David R. Brown along with exhibits as further evidence under Rule 53. I find that there is a delay of 10 months in filing the evidence. It is cardinal principle of law and justice that the evidence in question should be relevant for the determination of the issues involved in these proceedings. I have gone through the affidavit of Mr. David R. Brown along with the exhibits and I find that the said affidavit and exhibits filed therewith are relevant for determination of the issues involved in these proceedings. The Counsel also relied on the several case laws including most notably in the IP arena, Hostima Jain v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2000 PTC 24 DEL) and Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India reiterated in recent IPAB orders in Asian Paints Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2005 (30) PTC 444 (IPAB) and Hindustan Lever Limited v. Sunrider Corporation. The Counsel for the Opponents further submitted that in the instant case, the requisite procedural formalities have been complied with and the delay in filing evidence is reasonable and in light of the voluminous and cogent documentary evidence on record, the said delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. The Opponents' Counsel respectfully submitted that evidence in support of Opposition could not be timely filed for reasons and circumstances beyond the Opponent's control. However, the said evidence was eventually filed before a hearing was appointed in the matter and as such, the overall time period for prosecution of the opposition from the Hon'ble Tribunal's perspective was not jeopardized. The Opponent's Counsel also prayed that the subject IP be allowed and the matter may be proceeded further in accordance with the provisions of law. I am also of the opinion that prejudice will be caused to the Opponents if adequate opportunity is not given to them for filing their evidence in support of opposition under Rule 50. On the other hand, the Applicant's Counsel Mr. N. Surya Senthil, Advocate of M/s Surana & Surana International Attorneys submitted that the following: (a) Dismiss the Interlocutory Petition filed by the Opponent (b) To expedite the opposition proceedings by moving on to the next stage (c) To allow costs as may be decided appropriate by the learned Registrar. 5. It is ordered that Interlocutory Petition dated 12th April, 2005 is allowed and the evidence in support of opposition filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. David R. Brown along with exhibits is taken on record as evidence under Rule 50. Opponents are also called upon to file a condonation petition by way of a request on form TM -56 accompanied by the prescribed fee of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) to cover the delay in filing the evidence in support of opposition under Rule 50. I also direct that the matter be fixed for main hearing. 6. It is further ordered that the Opponents shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,500 (Rupees Thousand Five Hundred only) to the Applicants as costs of these proceedings. 7. Signed and Sealed at the Trade Marks Registry, Branch Chennai this the 22nd day of November, 2005.;