ITC Limited v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 81/2022
Delhi High Court · Disposed of
Refusal to take further evidence on record under Rule 53 of the 2002 Rules, now Rule 48 of the 2017 Rules, upheld and the appeal dismissed. Following Sun Pharma Laboratories v. Dabur India, the Court held the timelines for evidence in opposition are mandatory and leave the Registrar no discretion to extend. Rule 53 is a standalone provision but cannot be read detached from the framework of the Act: the inflexibility of Rules 50 to 52 cannot evaporate at Rule 53. The residual power is triggered when the Registrar herself thinks further evidence is needed, akin to a court's suo motu power, and the bare language does not allow a party to trigger it. It is not a valve to allow a deluge at the final stage, and even a trickle at a party's behest would render the mandatory timelines otiose. It is to be used in extremely rare circumstances, and cannot operate as a further opportunity for extension. Diligence is expected of applicant and opponent alike, and a party cannot leverage institutional delay to transgress a mandatory timeline.