Bombay HC holds issuance of due notice to proprietor for renewal of registration of trademark a mandatory requirement

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of RM Borde and RG Ketkar, JJ heard a petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, thereby prohibiting the respondent from removing the petitioner’s trademark “KLITOLIN” from the records in their registers and a quashment of the respondent’s order to remove the trademark from the said registers.

The petitioner, the owner of the trademark “KLITOLIN”, had registered the mark and had continued to renew the same till 2009. However, failing to do so in 2009, it was revealed that the trademark might be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that issuing a notice to the trademark proprietor under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was a mandatory requirement, in the absence of which, the respondent should allow renewal of the trademark.

The Court accepted the contentions of the petitioner who had relied on the case of Cipla Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks [Writ Petition No. 1669 of 2012] wherein it was held that removal of the mark from the trademark register without giving prior notice in Form O-3 is laconic and illegal. The respondents were therefore, directed to consider the petitioner’s application for renewal of the trademark subject to payment of the required fees. [Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited v. Registrar of Trademarks, Writ Petition No. 850 of 2015, order dated 17-1-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.