{"id":25792,"date":"2026-06-09T06:56:02","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T06:56:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=25792"},"modified":"2026-06-09T12:19:20","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T12:19:20","slug":"jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In trademark opposition proceedings, procedural fairness is not merely a technical formality\u2014it is the very foundation on which the entire system of checks and balances rests. When a party files an opposition to the registration of a trademark, it does so to protect its existing rights from being diluted or infringed upon by a new registration.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_84 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Factual_And_Procedural_Background\" >Factual And Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Trademark_Opposition_Procedure_Under_The_Rules\" >Trademark Opposition Procedure Under The Rules<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Registrars_Order_Dismissing_The_Opposition\" >Registrar&#8217;s Order Dismissing The Opposition<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Appeal_Before_The_Delhi_High_Court\" >Appeal Before The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Key_Case_Details\" >Key Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Core_Grievance_Of_Jyothy_Labs\" >Core Grievance Of Jyothy Labs<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Discrepancy_In_Registry_Records\" >Discrepancy In Registry Records<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#The_Dispute_Before_The_Court\" >The Dispute Before The Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Appellants_Contention\" >Appellant&#8217;s Contention<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Important_Legal_Issues_Involved\" >Important Legal Issues Involved<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Registry_Admission_of_Service_Failure\" >Registry Admission of Service Failure<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Courts_Analysis_Under_Rule_45_of_the_Trade_Marks_Rules_2017\" >Court&#8217;s Analysis Under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Natural_Justice_and_the_Right_to_Be_Heard\" >Natural Justice and the Right to Be Heard<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Directions_Issued_by_the_Court\" >Directions Issued by the Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Case_Summary\" >Case Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#Key_Legal_Takeaways\" >Key Legal Takeaways<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The opposition process under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, is a carefully designed mechanism that gives both the applicant and the opponent a fair opportunity to present their respective cases before the Registrar of Trade Marks. This mechanism depends critically on proper service of documents between the parties, because every subsequent step in the opposition\u2014including the filing of evidence\u2014is triggered by the receipt of the previous document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When this chain of communication breaks down due to a technical failure on the part of the Registry itself, and the opposition is dismissed merely because the opponent did not file evidence within the prescribed time, a grave injustice results. The opponent is penalised not for its own default but for a failure that was entirely the Registry&#8217;s doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Delhi High Court&#8217;s order dated 18th May 2026 in <strong>Jyothy Labs Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Others<\/strong> directly confronts this situation and reaffirms a principle that is fundamental to any fair adjudicatory process: no party can be condemned for failing to do something it was never given the opportunity or notice to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This case, though brief in its order, carries significant lessons for trademark practitioners, trademark applicants, and the Trade Marks Registry itself about the importance of proper service, the consequences of procedural lapses by administrative bodies, and the role of the High Court in correcting such errors on appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_And_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual And Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Jyothy Labs Limited, the Appellant, is a well-known Indian consumer goods company with an established presence in personal care, fabric care, and household products. The company filed an opposition bearing Opposition No. 1279339 against an application for registration of the trademark &#8220;JIVA AYURVEDA&#8221; filed under Application No. 4903005 in Class 42.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Class 42 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relates broadly to scientific and technological services and wellness-related services, which is consistent with the Ayurveda services that the applied mark appeared to cover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-trademark-opposition-procedure-under-the-rules\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trademark_Opposition_Procedure_Under_The_Rules\"><\/span>Trademark Opposition Procedure Under The Rules<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the trademark opposition process follows a structured sequence. Once an opposition notice is filed by the opponent, the trademark applicant is required to file a counter-statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, once the counter-statement is filed by the applicant and served upon the opponent, the opponent has a period of two months to file its evidence in support of its opposition. This evidence stage is critical because it is through this evidence that the opponent substantiates the grounds of its opposition and places on record the factual basis for why the applied trademark should not be registered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-registrar-s-order-dismissing-the-opposition\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Registrars_Order_Dismissing_The_Opposition\"><\/span>Registrar&#8217;s Order Dismissing The Opposition<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the present case, the Registrar of Trade Marks passed an order dated 6th February 2025, dismissing the opposition filed by Jyothy Labs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The basis for this dismissal was that Jyothy Labs had not filed its evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, within the prescribed period of two months from the alleged date of service of the counter-statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As a consequence of this dismissal, the Registrar allowed the application for registration of the mark &#8220;JIVA AYURVEDA&#8221; under Application No. 4903005 in Class 42 to proceed for registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appeal-before-the-delhi-high-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_The_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before The Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Jyothy Labs challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appeal was registered as C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 29\/2026 and was accompanied by three interlocutory applications bearing numbers I.A. 13755\/2026, I.A. 13756\/2026, and I.A. 13757\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Case_Details\"><\/span>Key Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Appellant<\/td><td>Jyothy Labs Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Respondents<\/td><td>The Registrar of Trade Marks and Others<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Opposition Number<\/td><td>1279339<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark Applied For<\/td><td>JIVA AYURVEDA<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Application Number<\/td><td>4903005<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Class<\/td><td>42<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Impugned Order Date<\/td><td>6th February 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>High Court Order Date<\/td><td>18th May 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appeal Number<\/td><td>C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 29\/2026<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-core-grievance-of-jyothy-labs\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Grievance_Of_Jyothy_Labs\"><\/span>Core Grievance Of Jyothy Labs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The core grievance of Jyothy Labs was straightforward: it never received the counter-statement filed by the trademark applicant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Since the counter-statement was never served upon it, Jyothy Labs could not have known that the two-month clock for filing evidence had started running. It was therefore impossible for it to have filed evidence within a period the commencement of which it had no notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There was an additional and telling inconsistency in the registry&#8217;s own records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The hearing notice dated 11th September 2025 issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks recorded the date of service of the counter-statement upon the appellant as 11th June 2024. However, the impugned order dated 6th February 2025 recorded the date of service of the counter-statement as 23rd April 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These two dates are different, and this discrepancy within the Registry&#8217;s own documents powerfully corroborated the appellant&#8217;s claim that something had clearly gone wrong with the service process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-discrepancy-in-registry-records\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discrepancy_In_Registry_Records\"><\/span>Discrepancy In Registry Records<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Document<\/th><th>Recorded Date Of Service Of Counter-Statement<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Hearing Notice dated 11th September 2025<\/td><td>11th June 2024<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Impugned Order dated 6th February 2025<\/td><td>23rd April 2024<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute_Before_The_Court\"><\/span>The Dispute Before The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute before the Court was narrow but significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The question was whether the Registrar of Trade Marks was justified in dismissing Jyothy Labs&#8217; opposition under Opposition No. 1279339 solely on the ground that evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 had not been filed within two months, when in fact the counter-statement\u2014the very document whose service triggers the running of that two-month period\u2014had never been properly served upon the appellant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appellant-s-contention\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Contention\"><\/span>Appellant&#8217;s Contention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Jyothy Labs&#8217; position was that it was a victim of the Registry&#8217;s own failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It had filed its opposition diligently and was waiting for the next step in the proceedings. It was never informed that a counter-statement had been filed, and it was therefore never in a position to respond by filing evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To penalise it for this non-compliance was to visit upon it the consequences of a failure that was not of its making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-important-legal-issues-involved\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Legal_Issues_Involved\"><\/span>Important Legal Issues Involved<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether proper service of a counter-statement is a mandatory prerequisite before the limitation period under Rule 45 begins to run.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether an opposition can be dismissed for failure to file evidence when the opponent never received the counter-statement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry can prejudice substantive rights of litigating parties.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether contradictory records maintained by the Registry undermine the validity of administrative decisions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether principles of natural justice require restoration of opposition proceedings where notice was not properly served.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Upon hearing the parties, the Court first noted the specific claim of the Appellant that the counter-statement had never been served upon it, which was the direct cause of its failure to file evidence within the prescribed period under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also took note of the significant internal inconsistency in the Registry&#8217;s own records\u2014the discrepancy between the date of alleged service mentioned in the hearing notice dated 11th September 2025, which stated 11th June 2024, and the date recorded in the impugned order of 6th February 2025, which stated 23rd April 2024. This inconsistency by itself raised serious doubt about whether any effective service had taken place at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-registry-admission-of-service-failure\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Registry_Admission_of_Service_Failure\"><\/span>Registry Admission of Service Failure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Most importantly, when the court issued notice and the matter was heard, the counsel representing the Registrar of Trade Marks made a candid and critical statement on instructions after scrutinising the official records of the registry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He stated that upon examination, it was indeed found that the counter-statement had in fact not been served upon the appellant. The reason attributed was a technical glitch that occurred at the time of service. The Registry thus effectively admitted that the service had failed and that the failure was on its part, not the appellant&#8217;s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-court-s-analysis-under-rule-45-of-the-trade-marks-rules-2017\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Analysis_Under_Rule_45_of_the_Trade_Marks_Rules_2017\"><\/span>Court&#8217;s Analysis Under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court&#8217;s analysis, though concise, was legally sound and principled. It observed that the mandate under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017\u2014which requires the counter-statement to be served upon the opponent before the evidence period commences\u2014had not been properly complied with by the registrar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This non-compliance by the Registry directly deprived the appellant of the opportunity to file its evidence in support of its opposition notice. Essentially, a party cannot be expected to comply with a time-bound procedural obligation when the very trigger for that obligation\u2014the receipt of a document\u2014never reached it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Procedural deadlines presuppose proper notice; without notice, there can be no default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-natural-justice-and-the-right-to-be-heard\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Natural_Justice_and_the_Right_to_Be_Heard\"><\/span>Natural Justice and the Right to Be Heard<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No external judicial precedents were cited or discussed in this brief order, which is not unusual for an interlocutory or remand order where the facts speak clearly for themselves and the legal principle is well-established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principle that a party must be given due notice before a proceeding can be conducted against it is foundational to natural justice and has been affirmed in countless contexts by Indian courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The right to be heard\u2014audi alteram partem\u2014is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of fair adjudication, and it cannot be bypassed by a procedural glitch in the Registry&#8217;s own system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-directions-issued-by-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Directions_Issued_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Directions Issued by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found it entirely appropriate in these circumstances to quash the impugned order dated 6th February 2025 and remand the matter back to the Registrar of Trade Marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The directions given were specific and practical:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Registrar was directed to complete service of the counter-statement upon the appellant within three weeks from the date of the order.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thereafter, the appellant was to be given a proper opportunity to file its evidence in accordance with Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Registrar was also directed to continue the proceedings in opposition No. 1279339 after this was done.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appeal filed by Jyothy Labs Limited under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, was disposed of by quashing the order dated 6th February 2025 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The matter was remanded to the Registrar with a direction to serve the counter-statement upon the appellant within three weeks, after which the appellant was to be given a full and proper opportunity to file its evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This order reaffirms and applies the elementary but vital principle that a statutory time period for filing evidence in trademark opposition proceedings under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, can only commence from the date of actual and proper service of the counter-statement upon the opponent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where the counter-statement has never been served upon the opponent due to a technical failure in the Registry&#8217;s own system, the opposition cannot be dismissed for non-filing of evidence within that period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The consequences of a procedural failure by the Registry cannot be visited upon the opposing party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When it is admitted by the Registry itself that there was a glitch in service, the proper remedy is to quash the order dismissing the opposition and remand the matter with a direction for fresh and proper service followed by a genuine opportunity to file evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-summary\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Summary\"><\/span>Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td><td>Jyothy Labs Limited vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Others<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date of Order<\/strong><\/td><td>18th May 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td><td>C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 29\/2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Name of Court<\/strong><\/td><td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Honourable Judge<\/strong><\/td><td>Hon&#8217;ble Mr Justice Tushar Rao Gedela<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-takeaways\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Legal Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Service of the counter-statement is a mandatory prerequisite before the Rule 45 evidence period can begin.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A party cannot be penalised for non-filing of evidence when the counter-statement has never been served.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Technical failures within the Trade Marks Registry cannot prejudice the rights of litigants.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The principles of natural justice require effective notice before adverse procedural consequences can follow.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where service failure is admitted by the Registry, the appropriate remedy is remand and restoration of the opportunity to file evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Disclaimer<\/strong>: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in the judgement, and the same are for illustrative purposes only. Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Written By:&nbsp;Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<br>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/mandatory-timelines-in-trademark-opposition\/\">Mandatory Timelines in Trademark Opposition<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/forensic-crisis-in-texas-faulty-dna-tests-impact-on-justice\/\">A Forensic Crisis In Texas: Faulty DNA Tests And Their Impact On Justice<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-protection-and-its-registration-process-in-india\/\">Trademark Protection and Its Registration Process in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-trademarks-act-1999-essential-provisions-and-comprehensive-overview\/\">The Trademarks Act, 1999: Essential Provisions and Comprehensive Overview<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-rules-registry-cannot-refuse-filing-of-execution-petitions-landmark-2026-judgment-explained\/\">Delhi High Court Rules Registry Cannot Refuse Filing of Execution Petitions: Landmark 2026 Judgment Explained<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction In trademark opposition proceedings, procedural fairness is not merely a technical formality\u2014it is the very foundation on which the entire system of checks and balances rests. When a party files an opposition to the registration of a trademark, it does so to protect its existing rights from being diluted or infringed upon by a<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":25791,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":["post-25792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property","tag-top-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.7) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court restores Jyothy Labs trademark opposition, ruling that Rule 45 timelines start only after proper service..\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court restores Jyothy Labs trademark opposition, ruling that Rule 45 timelines start only after proper service..\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-09T06:56:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-09T12:19:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"664\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"475\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-09T06:56:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-09T12:19:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2134,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-9.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\",\"Top News\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-09T06:56:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-09T12:19:20+00:00\",\"description\":\"Delhi High Court restores Jyothy Labs trademark opposition, ruling that Rule 45 timelines start only after proper service..\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-9.jpg\",\"width\":664,\"height\":475,\"caption\":\"Jyothy Labs trademark opposition\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Delhi High Court restores Jyothy Labs trademark opposition, ruling that Rule 45 timelines start only after proper service..","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition","og_description":"Delhi High Court restores Jyothy Labs trademark opposition, ruling that Rule 45 timelines start only after proper service..","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-06-09T06:56:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-09T12:19:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":664,"height":475,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition","datePublished":"2026-06-09T06:56:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-09T12:19:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/"},"wordCount":2134,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-9.jpg","keywords":["Intellectual Property","Top News"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/","name":"Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-9.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-09T06:56:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-09T12:19:20+00:00","description":"Delhi High Court restores Jyothy Labs trademark opposition, ruling that Rule 45 timelines start only after proper service..","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-9.jpg","width":664,"height":475,"caption":"Jyothy Labs trademark opposition"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/jyothy-labs-vs-registrar-trade-marks-rule-45-service-failure-delhi-high-court-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Technical Glitch in service of Counterstatement Cannot Defeat Trademark Opposition"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25792"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25792\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25821,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25792\/revisions\/25821"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25791"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}