Facts of the Case
The dispute arose when the appellant, Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., popularly known for its brand association with dairy products, filed an opposition against the trademark application of Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 had applied for registration of the mark “Doodh” under Class 30. The appellant filed Opposition No. 1298974 challenging this application on various grounds, asserting that the registration of such a mark would adversely affect its business interests and was liable to be refused under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Registrar of Trade Marks, however, by order dated 24 April 2025, dismissed the opposition on the ground that the appellant had failed to file its evidence affidavit in support of the opposition within the stipulated period of time. This dismissal prompted the appellant to file the present appeal before the High Court of Delhi challenging the Registrar’s decision.
The central factual controversy revolved around whether the appellant had indeed filed the affidavit of evidence within the statutory period prescribed under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which allows a period of two months from the date of service of notice to submit evidence.
Procedural Background
The opposition was filed on 10 April 2024. Subsequently, a notice dated 11 September 2024 was prepared by the Registrar’s office requiring the appellant to file its evidence. This notice was served upon the appellant only via email on 15 September 2024. As per Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, the limitation period for filing evidence commenced from the date of service, i.e., 15 September 2024. Thus, the two-month period would expire on 15 November 2024.
The appellant filed its affidavit of evidence before the Registrar on 14 November 2024 and also supplied a copy to Respondent No. 2 on 13 November 2024. In addition, the evidence was dispatched through speed post on 11 November 2024. Despite this timely filing, the Registrar dismissed the opposition by treating the filing as delayed, apparently computing the limitation from the date of the letter (11 September 2024) instead of the actual date of service (15 September 2024).
This error formed the basis of the appeal before the Delhi High Court.
The Core Dispute
The principal dispute was whether the appellant had complied with the statutory requirement of filing evidence within two months from the date of service of notice under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
The appellant argued that the limitation must run from the date of actual service of notice, not from the date printed on the Registrar’s letter. Therefore, since the service was effected on 15 September 2024 and the affidavit of evidence was filed on 14 November 2024, it was clearly within the statutory time.
On the other hand, the Registrar had mistakenly concluded that the evidence affidavit was filed beyond time, while Respondent No. 2 contended that though technically served within time, this situation caused prejudice since Respondent No. 2 had already been granted registration.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court examined the submissions of all parties, particularly the written statement of the Registrar of Trade Marks. It was fairly conceded by the Registrar that the notice was indeed served only on 15 September 2024 via email and not earlier.
This concession was critical, as Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, explicitly states that the period of two months for filing evidence begins from the date of receipt of notice. The Court observed that service of notice is a foundational step in limitation law. Citing the general legal principle that limitation runs from the date of actual service and not the date of the letter, the Court held that the appellant had acted within the prescribed period.
The Court emphasized that the Registrar’s finding that the evidence was filed belatedly was contrary to the record and violative of Rule 45(1). The Court also stressed that any contrary interpretation would amount to depriving a party of its statutory right to oppose a trademark merely on account of a procedural misunderstanding.
Furthermore, the Court carefully balanced equities. While setting aside the Registrar’s order, the Court recognized the concern of Respondent No. 2, who had been granted registration in the meantime. To address this, the Court directed the Registrar to decide the opposition afresh within a period of two months, strictly without adjournments, thereby protecting the rights of both parties.
The Court also directed that the relief sought in prayer clause (d) for cancellation of Respondent No. 2’s registration be allowed and the trademark registry be updated accordingly within two weeks. However, the Court clarified that nothing in its order should be read as an opinion on the merits of the opposition itself, which would have to be independently adjudicated by the Registrar.
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. and set aside the impugned order dated 24 April 2025 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Court held that the appellant had filed its evidence affidavit within the prescribed period under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
The Court remanded the matter to the Registrar of Trade Marks with directions to conduct a time-bound hearing and adjudicate the opposition on its merits within two months. The registration already granted to Respondent No. 2 was ordered to be updated in the records to reflect the correct legal position. Importantly, the Court clarified that its order should not prejudice the Registrar’s independent decision on the merits of the opposition.
Case Information
- Case Title: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
- Case Number: C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 46/2025
- Date of Decision: 19 September 2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
