{"id":7371,"date":"2025-08-18T12:08:32","date_gmt":"2025-08-18T12:08:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=7371"},"modified":"2025-08-18T12:17:35","modified_gmt":"2025-08-18T12:17:35","slug":"retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Retrospectivity of Procedural Amendments in Trademark Law"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"case-summary\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case revolves around a significant legal reference placed before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi concerning the applicability of procedural rules under the <strong>Trade Marks Rules, 2017<\/strong> to ongoing trademark opposition proceedings initiated under the repealed <strong>Trade Marks Rules, 2002<\/strong>.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 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\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#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\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/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\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/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\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/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\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/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\/retrospectivity-of-procedural-amendments-in-trademark-law\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The reference arose from doubts expressed by a learned Single Judge in <em>SAP SE v. Swiss Auto Products &amp; Anr.<\/em> regarding the correctness of an earlier decision in <em>Mahesh Gupta v. Registrar of Trademarks &amp; Anr.<\/em> The core issue pertains to whether changes introduced by the 2017 Rules\u2014particularly timelines for filing evidence and the concept of deemed abandonment\u2014should apply retrospectively.<\/p>\n<p>The Division Bench, comprising Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma, examined the statutory framework, repeal provisions, and procedural amendments to resolve whether such rules alter pre-existing proceedings. This judgment clarifies the interplay between old and new rules in trademark adjudication, emphasizing the preservation of actions taken under prior regimes.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The factual matrix involves two separate trademark disputes consolidated for reference:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>SAP SE Case:<\/strong> SAP SE sought registration of the mark &#8220;SAP&#8221; under Class 9 on December 6, 1999. The application was advertised on January 1, 2007, and opposed by Swiss Auto Products on August 14, 2007. After multiple extensions, SAP SE submitted evidence on May 9, 2014, but the Registrar rejected it on June 12, 2019, citing non-compliance with the 2002 Rules.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Mahesh Gupta Case:<\/strong> Mahesh Gupta opposed the mark &#8220;JKENT&#8221; filed on April 28, 1998. Opposition was filed in 2006, counter-statement in 2008, and evidence in 2010. On August 7, 2019, the Registrar deemed the opposition abandoned by invoking the 2017 Rules.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Both matters commenced under the 2002 Rules. In SAP SE\u2019s case, opposition filings and extensions occurred before the enforcement of the 2017 Rules (March 6, 2017). The Registrar\u2019s rejection came later, applying the 2002 timelines. SAP SE appealed, and the matter was referred to a larger bench on July 3, 2023.<\/p>\n<p>In Mahesh Gupta\u2019s case, the Registrar applied the 2017 Rules to deem abandonment. A Single Judge in 2023 upheld the abandonment but applied the 2002 Rules, interpreting the repeal clause to preserve prior actions.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central issue is whether the 2017 Rules apply retrospectively to oppositions initiated under the 2002 Rules, especially Rules 45 and 46 (2017) versus Rules 50 and 51 (2002). The question is whether failures under the 2002 regime are \u201canything done\u201d saved by Rule 158 of the 2017 Rules, or if new procedural rules revive abandoned proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>This raises broader concerns on statutory interpretation, repeal effects, and balancing procedural efficiency with vested rights.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The court considered multiple precedents:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry<\/em> (1957) \u2013 procedural changes are retrospective unless they impair vested rights.<\/li>\n<li><em>New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra<\/em> (1975) \u2013 procedural amendments do not affect accrued rights.<\/li>\n<li><em>Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra<\/em> (1994) \u2013 procedural rules apply retrospectively only if not prejudicial.<\/li>\n<li><em>Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shah Sadiq &amp; Sons<\/em> (1987) \u2013 repeal erases prior rules unless expressly saved.<\/li>\n<li><em>Wyeth Holdings Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/em> (2009) \u2013 abandonment under 2002 Rules discussed but later distinguished.<\/li>\n<li><em>Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira<\/em> (2019) \u2013 procedural retrospectivity does not extend to substantive rights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Justice Yashwant Varma, writing for the Bench, emphasized Rule 158 of the 2017 Rules, which repeals the 2002 Rules but saves \u201canything done\u201d under them. This was interpreted broadly to include all steps in ongoing proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The Bench held that procedural changes generally apply retrospectively, but not when they disturb vested positions or finalities achieved under earlier laws. The phrase \u201cnot exceeding one month\u201d in Rules 50 and 51 (2002) created an inflexible cap, amounting to deemed abandonment for non-compliance. Thus, abandonment under the 2002 Rules attained finality and could not be revived by 2017 Rules.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench held that the 2017 Rules do not apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated under the 2002 Rules.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>SAP SE Appeal:<\/strong> Registrar\u2019s rejection upheld under 2002 Rules, appeal dismissed.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Mahesh Gupta LPA:<\/strong> Single Judge\u2019s order affirmed, abandonment applied under 2002 Rules, appeal dismissed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment establishes that the <strong>Trade Marks Rules, 2017<\/strong> do not apply retrospectively to evidence timelines in oppositions initiated under the <strong>2002 Rules<\/strong>. Rule 158 preserves prior actions, and abandonment under the 2002 regime remains final and irrevocable.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Mahesh Gupta vs Registrar Of Trademarks &amp; Anr.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 13 March, 2024<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> LPA 429\/2023<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2024:DHC:2053-DB<\/li>\n<li><strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judges:<\/strong> Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction This case revolves around a significant legal reference placed before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi concerning the applicability of procedural rules under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 to ongoing trademark opposition proceedings initiated under the repealed Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The reference arose from doubts expressed by a learned Single<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","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":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-7371","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7371","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=7371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}