Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd., A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 vs Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks

Raghbir Singh, J

This will dispose of OA No. 117/04 and M.P. No. 128/04 filed by the appellant. This appeal is against the order passed by the Assistant Registrar

of Trade Marks, New Delhi in relation to the TM-13 of the appellant. Appellant has submitted that it is the registered proprietor of trade mark

'JOHNSON' under No. 197998B (SP-1) in class 11. It some how could not get the trade mark renewed after 1995 and made an application in TM-13

on 8.9.2004. Learned Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks by his order dated 15.9.2004 refused to renew the trade mark stating the reason as 'TM-13

time barred"" without stating any other reason for rejection of the application.

The appeal was taken up for consideration in the sitting of the Board held at Delhi on 28.1.2005. Learned counsel Shri S.Sridaran appeared on

behalf of the appellant and none appeared for the respondent from the office of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks.

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade

Marks Rules, 2002 creates a mandate against the Registrar of Trade Marks to notify the registered proprietor in writing in form O-3 of the

approaching expiration of the registered trade mark at the address of their principle place of business in India as entered in the Register. It is a

mandatory provision. Learned counsel submitted that no such notice has been given by the Assistant Registrar to the appellant and thus there is a

grave violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that in view of this the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks may be injuncted to restore

back the mark on the Register and renew it accordingly. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks is the respondent in the matter and the learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that the appeal has been appropriately served on the respondent. It was expected that the Assistant Registrar should have

filed his counter statement in the matter giving details of the notice, if any, given in form O-3. We have neither received any communication from the

Assistant Registrar's office nor anybody has appeared before us.

In view of the above we set aside the order of the Registrar and remand the application to the Registrar with the direction that TM-13 application

should be considered afresh under the provisions of section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002

. It is expected that the Registrar shall pass a detailed and reasoned order. Accordingly the OA 117/04 is allowed and in view of the same MP No.

128/04 does not survive.