{"id":28985,"date":"2026-08-03T06:20:27","date_gmt":"2026-08-03T06:20:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=28985"},"modified":"2026-08-03T06:34:21","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T06:34:21","slug":"rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017"},"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\">Trademark registration procedures in India are governed by structured timelines designed to bring commercial certainty and protect brand rights. A crucial stage in this process occurs when a published trademark application faces opposition from a third party. Under the statutory framework, both the applicant and the opponent are required to submit their respective pleadings and supporting evidence within designated time limits. The interpretation of these time limits, specifically whether they are strictly mandatory or merely flexible administrative directions, has frequently been a subject of judicial debate. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras recently delivered a significant ruling analyzing whether the Registrar of Trade Marks possesses the power to extend the time period for filing evidence in support of an opposition under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 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\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#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\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#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\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Case_Timeline\" >Case Timeline<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >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-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Applicants_Contentions\" >Applicant&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Opponents_Contentions\" >Opponent&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of 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-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Key_Findings_of_the_Court\" >Key Findings of 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-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#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-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Legal_Principle_at_a_Glance\" >Legal Principle at a Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\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\">The history of the case traces back to 09.05.2016, when an application was submitted for the registration of a label mark featuring <strong>KANGARO<\/strong> under Application No. 3254001 in Class 16. Following the publication of the mark in the Trade Marks Journal, a notice of opposition was filed on 06.01.2017 by an opposing entity. In response, the trademark applicant filed its counterstatement on 19.05.2017, which was officially served on the opposing party on 05.08.2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During the pendency of these proceedings, the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, came into force, replacing the earlier 2002 regulatory framework. Under Rule 45(1) of the 2017 Rules, an opponent is mandated to either file evidence by way of affidavit in support of the opposition or formally intimate that it intends to rely solely on the facts stated in its notice of opposition, within two months from the receipt of the counter statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case, the two-month period from the date of receipt of the counterstatement expired without the opponent filing its evidence or issuing the required statutory intimation. Instead, on 23.09.2017, the opponent submitted Form TM-M seeking a one-month extension of time to file evidence, subsequently submitting its evidence on 18.10.2017. The applicant thereafter filed its evidence on 21.12.2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks examined the matter and issued a notice regarding the procedural delay. By an order dated 08.05.2018, the Assistant Registrar rejected the extension application and declared that the opposition stood deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved by this decision, the opponent filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board on 27.07.2018. Upon the abolition of the appellate tribunal, the proceeding was transferred to the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court. A single judge of the High Court set aside the Assistant Registrar&#8217;s order and remanded the opposition for fresh consideration on merits, while directing that the registration granted to the applicant in the interim would abide by the outcome of the remanded opposition. The applicant then instituted a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench, challenging the single judge&#8217;s judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-case-timeline\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Timeline\"><\/span>Case Timeline<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>09.05.2016<\/td><td>Trademark application filed for label mark <strong>KANGARO<\/strong> (Application No. 3254001, Class 16).<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>06.01.2017<\/td><td>Notice of opposition filed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>19.05.2017<\/td><td>Counter statement filed by the applicant.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>05.08.2017<\/td><td>A counter-attack was served on the opponent.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>23.09.2017<\/td><td>Form TM-M filed seeking an extension.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>18.10.2017<\/td><td>Opponent filed evidence.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>21.12.2017<\/td><td>Applicant filed evidence.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>08.05.2018<\/td><td>The assistant registrar declared the opposition deemed abandoned.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>27.07.2018<\/td><td>Appeal filed before IPAB.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>30.07.2026<\/td><td>The Division Bench delivered the final judgment.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The primary legal issue presented before the Division Bench was whether the two-month timeline specified under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, is mandatory or directory in nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-applicant-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Applicants_Contentions\"><\/span>Applicant&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The applicant argued that unlike Rule 50 of the repealed 2002 Rules, which expressly granted discretion to the Registrar to extend the period for filing evidence by one additional month, Rule 45 of the 2017 Rules deliberately removed all discretionary extensions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It was contended that Rule 45(2) establishes an automatic legal fiction of deemed abandonment if an opponent fails to file evidence or intimate reliance on its notice of opposition within the two-month window.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The applicant further submitted that general provisions empowering the Registrar to extend timelines, such as Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 109 of the 2017 Rules, cannot be invoked where a specific rule contains an express statutory deadline accompanied by an explicit consequence of default.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-opponent-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Opponents_Contentions\"><\/span>Opponent&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>On the other hand, the opponent contended that procedural rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to destroy substantive rights vested in trademark litigants.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It was argued that the right to oppose a trademark application is vital to maintaining the purity of the register and serving the public interest.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The opponent maintained that the filing of Form TM-M within the two-month window demonstrated active steps, and the Registrar retained discretionary power under Section 131 and Rule 109 to condone procedural delays in the interest of justice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Division Bench undertook a detailed statutory analysis of Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, in contrast with the statutory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and predecessor rules. The Bench highlighted the precise legislative drafting of Rule 45(1), noting that the word <strong>&#8220;shall&#8221;<\/strong> is employed three distinct times to mandate the procedural duties of an opponent. Furthermore, Rule 45(2) explicitly states that if an opponent takes no action under sub-rule (1) within the prescribed time, he shall be deemed to have abandoned his opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court emphasized the crucial shift introduced by the executive while framing the 2017 Rules. Under Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, the Registrar had express authority to grant a further extension of one month beyond the initial two-month period. The complete exclusion of this discretionary extension in Rule 45 of the 2017 Rules reflects a clear legislative intention to enforce strict, unyielding deadlines for evidence submission during opposition proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In analyzing the applicability of Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 109 of the 2017 Rules, the Court clarified that general discretionary powers to extend time apply only to matters where a specific time limit is not expressly provided with an absolute statutory consequence. Rule 109 itself excludes matters where time limits are expressly governed by specific rules. Because Rule 45 provides both a strict time limit and an explicit penalty of deemed abandonment, recourse to general extension provisions under Section 131 or Rule 109 is impermissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court examined various judicial authorities cited by the parties, including decisions emphasizing that procedural law must serve substantive justice as well as decisions confirming that statutory rules framed under an Act carry mandatory force when framed to streamline time-bound commercial adjudication. The Court concurred with the principle that where the law imposes an automatic consequence of default through a legal fiction of deemed abandonment, courts and administrative authorities cannot create exceptions that defeat the text and objective of the law. Consequently, the Assistant Registrar&#8217;s decision to reject the extension application and treat the opposition as abandoned was fully justified and legally sound.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-findings-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Findings_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Key Findings of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, is mandatory.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rule 45(2) creates an automatic legal fiction of deemed abandonment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The omission of the extension provision from the 2017 Rules was intentional.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, cannot override Rule 45.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rule 109 cannot be invoked where Rule 45 expressly governs the timeline.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Assistant Registrar acted within the statutory framework.<\/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 Division Bench allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the judgment of the single judge. The Court restored the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, which had declared the opposition as deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Consequently, the trademark application was freed from the revived opposition proceedings, protecting the statutory rights accrued to the registered proprietor. All connected miscellaneous applications were closed without any order as to costs.<\/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 decision clarifies and settles a critical point of intellectual property law regarding trademark opposition procedure in India. The High Court established that the two-month period prescribed under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, for filing evidence in support of an opposition is absolute and mandatory. Failure to file affidavit evidence or formally intimate reliance on the notice of opposition within this two-month period results in automatic deemed abandonment of the opposition under Rule 45(2). The Registrar of Trade Marks lacks statutory authority or inherent discretion under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or Rule 109 of the 2017 Rules to grant extensions of time for evidence submission under Rule 45. This ruling reinforces procedural discipline and commercial efficiency in trademark prosecution across India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-legal-principle-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principle_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Legal Principle at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Held by the Court<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Nature of Rule 45(1)<\/td><td>Mandatory<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Time for filing evidence<\/td><td>Two months only<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Extension under Rule 45<\/td><td>Not permissible<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Effect of default<\/td><td>Automatic deemed abandonment under Rule 45(2)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Applicability of Section 131<\/td><td>Cannot override Rule 45<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Applicability of Rule 109<\/td><td>Not applicable to Rule 45 proceedings<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>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>Title of the Case<\/th><td>V-Guard Industries Limited vs. Kangaro Industries and Another<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgment<\/th><td>30-07-2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>LPA No. 18 of 2026 and CMP No. 12387 of 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Coram<\/th><td>Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan and Hon&#8217;ble Mrs. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Practice Area<\/th><td>Trademark Law | Intellectual Property Law<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-written-by\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong><br>IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)<br>High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction Trademark registration procedures in India are governed by structured timelines designed to bring commercial certainty and protect brand rights. A crucial stage in this process occurs when a published trademark application faces opposition from a third party. Under the statutory framework, both the applicant and the opponent are required to submit their respective pleadings<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"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,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149],"class_list":["post-28985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v28.1 (Yoast SEO v28.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017 - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Madras High Court rules that Rule 45 is mandatory. Delay in trademark opposition evidence leads to deemed abandonment.\" \/>\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\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Madras High Court rules that Rule 45 is mandatory. Delay in trademark opposition evidence leads to deemed abandonment.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-08-03T06:20:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-03T06:34:21+00:00\" \/>\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=\"8 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\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-03T06:20:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-03T06:34:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1529,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/\",\"name\":\"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017 - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-03T06:20:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-03T06:34:21+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Madras High Court rules that Rule 45 is mandatory. Delay in trademark opposition evidence leads to deemed abandonment.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Law > Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory\"}]},{\"@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":"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017 - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Madras High Court rules that Rule 45 is mandatory. Delay in trademark opposition evidence leads to deemed abandonment.","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\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017","og_description":"The Madras High Court rules that Rule 45 is mandatory. Delay in trademark opposition evidence leads to deemed abandonment.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-08-03T06:20:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-03T06:34:21+00:00","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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017","datePublished":"2026-08-03T06:20:27+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-03T06:34:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/"},"wordCount":1529,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Intellectual Property"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/","name":"Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Rules No Extension Under Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017 - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-08-03T06:20:27+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-03T06:34:21+00:00","description":"The Madras High Court rules that Rule 45 is mandatory. Delay in trademark opposition evidence leads to deemed abandonment.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-45-trade-marks-rules-2017-trademark-opposition-time-limit-madras-high-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Law > Trademark Opposition Time Limit Is Mandatory"}]},{"@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":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28985","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=28985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}