Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'FISCHBEIN' Trademark Abandonment Order Over Uncommunicated Objections

On March 10, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the Registrar's decision violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application based on grounds never communicated to the applicant, nVenia.

“It is the bounden duty of the Trade Marks Office while examining the application to place all objections before the applicant so as to enable the applicant to know and be aware of the objections which are to be addressed. It is those very objections alone that the applicant can be expected to respond to at that stage,” the bench remarked.

nVenia filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, which declared nVenia's application for the mark “FISCHBEIN” as abandoned despite being intimated of pending opposition proceedings against a conflicting mark cited in the Examination Report.

In its pleadings, the company contended that the mark has been used globally since 1918 and in India since 1989. They argued that their application was being diligently pursued and that they had even initiated opposition proceedings against a rival trader, Naresh Behl, who had allegedly adopted an identical mark in bad faith.

The company pleaded that the Registrar's sudden declaration of "abandonment" was frivolous, especially since they had requested a short adjournment via a letter dated February 20, 2025, which the authority failed to acknowledge.

Reviewing the record, the High Court noted that the objections regarding the user claim and the entity names on the invoices were not raised in the initial Examination Report.

“It is clear from the reply that the appellant had submitted its response, right or wrong, to the objection raised in the Examination Report. At that stage, it could not be expected from the appellant to give any clarification or file any further documents to an objection which was not even raised in the Examination Report,” the bench remarked.

The bench remarked that it was "intriguing" how the Registrar expected the company to provide clarifications on issues it was never officially notified of.

“In the present case, the impugned order proceeds as if the refusal of the application on the grounds of rejection contained therein were already in the know of the appellant. This is contrary to the facts on record. Thus, in that view of the matter, the contention of the respondent is untenable,” the court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered the Registrar to conduct a fresh adjudication within four months.

For nVenia: Advocate Ranjan Narula

For Controller General: CGSC Nidhi Raman with Advocates Om Ram and Arnav Mittal