The case at hand delves into a significant legal issue that emerged during a
trademark opposition proceeding. In response to the counter statement of the
applicant, the opponent opted not to file evidence in support of their notice of
opposition. Instead, they chose to rely solely on the contents of the notice of
opposition itself. This decision prompted the court to examine the implications
of such a course of action under the Trade Marks Act and the Trade Marks Rules.
The central contention in this case revolves around the opponent's decision to
rely solely on the contents of their notice of opposition without submitting
additional evidence. This choice was based on a communication dated 05.10.2017,
where the appellant informed the Trade Marks Registry that they did not intend
to present evidence in support of the notice of opposition but would instead
rely on the submissions made within the notice.
The High Court's Observation:
Upon reviewing the case, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the crucial
statutes governing the situation are Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act and Rule
45 of the Trade Marks Rules. While Section 21(2) establishes the repercussions
of not submitting a counter statement in response to a notice of opposition, it
does not explicitly outline the consequences of not producing evidence.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Rule 45(1) explicitly provides the opponent
with a choice: they can either furnish evidence or communicate in writing to the
Registrar and the applicant that they do not wish to submit evidence but intend
to rely on the facts stated in the notice of opposition.
Communication and Jurisdiction:
A significant aspect of the case relates to the communication sent by the
appellant on 05.10.2017. This communication was directed to the Registrar of
Trade Marks, Chennai, but it was transmitted to the e-mail address of the Trade
Marks Registry in Mumbai ([email protected]
). The primary ground on which the
opposition was deemed abandoned was the transmission of this communication to
the Mumbai Office. However, Rule 8 specifies that notices and documents should
be delivered or sent to the appropriate office, which is the Chennai Office in
In this context, the Court acknowledged that, despite the communication being
addressed to the Chennai office, the appellant's decision to transmit it via
e-mail to the Mumbai office was in substantial compliance with the mandate of
Rule 45(1). This decision hinges on the fact that while Rule 8 stipulates the
method of delivery, the practical situation of the appellant addressing the
communication to the Trade Marks Office, Chennai, demonstrated sufficient
adherence to the rule.
The a concluding Note:
The case under scrutiny underscores the intricacies of trademark opposition
proceedings and the careful navigation required when choosing to rely solely on
the contents of a notice of opposition. The Court's interpretation of the
relevant statutes and rules emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural
requirements while also acknowledging the practical considerations that may
influence communication methods.
This case sets a precedent that informs trademark opponents that they have the
option to forego submitting evidence in support of their opposition and instead
rely on the facts presented in their notice of opposition. Furthermore, the case
clarifies the acceptable methods of communication within the context of Rule 8,
highlighting the significance of substantial compliance with procedural
Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Goldmedal Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Registrar of Trademarks
Date of Judgement:11.08.2023
Case No. T/CMA/TM 103 of 2023 [OA/43/2020/TM/CH]
Neutral Citation No: NA
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, H.J.
Name of Court:Madras High Court
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public
Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it
is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception,
interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Email: [email protected]
, Ph no: 9990389539