- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Firdosh P. Pooniw Alla
- Outcome
- Rectification allowed
Headnote
Marks unrenewed since 1983 but never removed from the register, and replies under the Right to Information confirming that no removal notice had ever issued. The Division Bench held that section 25(3) makes it mandatory for the Registrar to give notice before expiry, telling the proprietor the date of expiration and the conditions for renewal, and only on non-compliance with that notice may the mark be removed. Where there is a two-way lapse, the proprietor not applying and the Registrar not issuing notice, the mark remains on the register and the right to seek renewal subsists. Section 25(3) cannot be read to mean that the right of renewal is extinguished or lost merely because no notice was issued. The electronic module ought not to have generated a remark refusing the renewal applications for a lapse of more than one year. Cipla, Malhotra Book Depot, Harbans Singh Khanduja and Ipca Laboratories followed.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.