- Case number
- W.P.(IPD) Nos.4 to 14 of 2024
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy W. P
- Outcome
- Rectification allowed
Headnote
Eleven writ petitions seeking renewal of registrations whose terms had expired, allowed in part. The Court held that Rule 57(1) fixes the earliest date for a renewal application but no last date; an end date is prescribed only for restoration, under section 25(4) read with Rule 60. Where no renewal application is received the Registrar is under a statutory obligation to issue notice in Form RG-3 under section 25(3) read with Rule 58(1), and cannot remove the mark until six months after expiry, because the proviso to section 25(3) precludes removal if a surcharge application is made within that window. Here the marks had not been removed and the Registry could not produce any acknowledgment that the RG-3 notice had been received. That failure, to give notice and to remove, leaves the door open to the proprietor or a successor in interest to seek renewal. Irvinder Kaur Chadha was distinguished because notice had been served there, and the Court concurred with the Bombay Division Bench in Motwane.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice.