Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Against Bombay HC Ruling Trademark Evidence Deadline Is Directory

The Supreme Court on 24 August issued notice on Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to a Bombay High Court judgment holding that the two-month period prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 for filing an evidence affidavit is directory and not a mandatory deadline.

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran made the notice “returnable after four weeks” and directed that “in the meantime, the proceedings of rectification shall remain stayed.”

The dispute concerns trademark rectification proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Black Diamond Motors challenged the Registrar's decision allowing an evidence affidavit to be placed on record despite the substantial delay.

The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated 17 June 2026, held that Rule 45 forms part of the procedural framework governing opposition and rectification proceedings and does not create an inflexible limitation period.

A Bench comprising Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan had reasoned that Rules 45 to 48 operate together, with Rule 47 permitting additional evidence and Rule 48 giving the Registrar discretion to allow further evidence. It therefore held that treating the Rule 45 deadline as mandatory would be inconsistent with the wider scheme of the Rules.

It had also rejected the argument that failure to file evidence within two months automatically extinguishes the underlying opposition or rectification proceedings. It held that the deeming provision under Rule 45(2) could not be used to defeat substantive rights available under Sections 21 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act.

The Supreme Court has sought the respondents' response to Black Diamond Motors' challenge while keeping the rectification proceedings stayed pending further orders.

For Petitioner: Padmesh Mishra, AOR, Advocates Vastvikta Bhardwaj, Vijant