- Case number
- COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 27100 OF 2025
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal of a trade mark application set aside as ex facie unreasoned. The Court held that section 18(5) obliges the Registrar to record reasons for refusing an application, and that since section 91 provides an appeal, the order must contain reasons because they are the only basis on which its legality can be tested. Reasons supplied for the first time in the affidavit in reply, which found no place in the order itself, could not cure it. The Court also rejected the Registrar's position that a cited registered mark could only be met by proceedings under section 47 and that the hearing officer had no power to examine the actual user of the cited mark, holding that this would render section 12 entirely otiose. Following London Rubber, honest concurrent use is an independent provision to be interpreted liberally.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.