Delhi High Court Allows Revival Of 'HMP' Trademark As Registry Fails To Prove Renewal Notice Was Sent

The Delhi High Court on 23 September allowed a petition filed by trademark owner Punam Chand Kedia seeking revival of his “HMP” mark after the Trade Marks Registry rejected his renewal application on the ground that the prescribed renewal period had expired.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikas Mahajan observed:

“In that view of the matter, in the absence of any reliable evidence in support of the stand taken by the respondent that O-3 notices were sent, it is difficult for this court to accept the contention of the respondent that the O-3 notice was duly sent in terms of Section 25(3) of the Act read with Rule 64(1) of the Rules.”

Kedia's mark was registered in 2003 and renewed once until 2015, after which it became liable for removal from the register.

His counsel submitted that the Registry was required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act and Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules to issue a notice informing the proprietor of the approaching expiry before removing the mark. Further, that Kedia had never received such notice.

The Registry relied on a notice dated 17 September 2015, claiming that it had been sent in compliance with the requirement.

Earlier, the Court had granted the Registry two weeks to produce evidence showing that the notice had actually been dispatched and received by Kedia. The Registry produced a dispatch log generated from its own system. The Court found that the log did not establish that the notice had been dispatched from the Registry or received by Kedia.

Therefore, the Bench held that the Registry had failed to establish compliance with the statutory notice requirement. It permitted Kedia to file a fresh renewal application within two weeks on payment of the prescribed fee, directing the Registry to accept and process it in accordance with the Rules.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition.