- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2021
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Prathiba M. Singh
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Summary rejection of an application under Rule 124 for inclusion in the list of well-known marks, for want of an affidavit, set aside. Rule 124 speaks of evidence and documents, and evidence under the Evidence Act includes both oral and documentary evidence, so section 129 cannot be read to confine it to affidavits. An affidavit is therefore not mandatory where there is sufficient documentary evidence; conversely affidavits without supporting documents may not establish well-known status at all. Some matters, such as the reasons for adoption of a mark, the manner of its coining or a family history of use, may be capable of proof only by affidavit, and an applicant may file both. Where the Registrar considers particular documents need to be supported by affidavit, Rule 124(3) allows him to give the applicant an opportunity to file one rather than rejecting the application summarily, and non-filing is not fatal. The Court also set out the documentary evidence that establishes well-known status.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.