High Court · 2025

W.P.(IPD)No.18 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.09.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR WP(IPD) No. 18 of 2025M/s.Darshan International,Represented by Partner T.S. Ashok, No. 141, 3rd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 018, Karnataka...PetitionerVs1. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & GIIntellectual Property Office Building, G.S.T Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032, Tamil Nadu.2. M/s.Dev Dharshandhoop Industries, Plot No.314, Industrial Area-II, Chandigarh-160002.(R2 impleaded vide order dated 26.08.2025 made in WMP(IPD)No.22 of 2025 in WP(IPD)No.18 of 2025 by SKRJ)..RespondentsPrayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to restore petitioner's trademark application bearing number 1928924 under class 03 for the device of 'Darshan Incense' to its original status and consequently, issue correspondence of the Notice of opposition to the petitioner to enable the __________Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(IPD)No.18 of 2025petitioner to file counter statement or alternatively fix a hearing date to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why counter statement has not been filed.For Petitioner:Ms. Priya V.For Respondent:Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, CGSC for R1No appearance for R2ORDERBy this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to restore petitioner's trademark application bearing No.1928924 under Class 03 for the device of 'Darshan Incense' to its original status and consequently, to issue correspondence of the notice of opposition to the petitioner to enable them to file counter statement or alternatively, fix a hearing date to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why counter statement has not been filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application bearing No.1928924 for registration of the trade mark 'Darshan Incense' on 02.03.2010. The application was accepted for advertisement and such advertisement was published in the Trade Marks Journal on 13.05.2013. On 31.05.2013, the 2nd respondent has filed an application for opposition of __________Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(IPD)No.18 of 2025registration of the petitioner's application. According to the petitioner, notice of opposition was not issued. Learned counsel further submits that on 06.02.2023, public notice of abandonment was issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM). In response to the public notice, the petitioner sent an e-mail to the 1st respondent intimating non-receipt of notice of opposition. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an order directing the CGPDTM to withdraw the public notice dated 06.02.2023, the 1st respondent passed an order abandoning the petitioner's application on 02.06.2023 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In these circumstances, learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been deprived of the valuable right of obtaining registration merely on account of inability to respond to the notice of opposition due to non-receipt thereof. 3. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Registrar of Trademarks/1st respondent submits that they have despatched the notice of opposition to the petitioner through e-mail. However, no proof of receipt of such e-mail by the petitioner is on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed by stating that the petitioner has not received any e-mail. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has __________Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(IPD)No.18 of 2025relied upon the order of this Court dated 03.04.2025 in W.P.(IPD)No.3 of 2025, wherein, in an identical situation, this Court has allowed the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file the counter statement in response to the notice of opposition and prayed for similar order to be passed in this writ petition as well. 5. In a similar writ petition in W.P.(IPD)No.3 of 2025, by order dated 03.04.2025, this Court has dealt with the issue and observed as under:“6. In Ramya S. Moorthy v. Registrar of Trademarks and another, order dated 10.08.2023, W.P.(IPD)Nos.3 & 4 of 2023, I dealt with a case wherein the facts and circumstances were substantially similar. After noticing that sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 stipulates that the time limit of two months for the trade mark applicant to file a counter statement runs from the date of receipt of the notice of opposition, I concluded that Rule 18(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is not in consonance with the statutory prescription, inasmuch as it provides for deemed service upon despatch of e-mail to the trade mark applicant. After further recording that the substantive right of the trade mark applicant is at stake, I allowed the writ petition. The petitioner herein, who is similarly situated, is also entitled to similar relief. 7. By the impugned order, it was also recorded that the opposition abates. On account of restoring the trade mark __________Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(IPD)No.18 of 2025application, it is just and necessary that the opposition be restored. 8. For reasons aforesaid, W.P.(IPD)No.3 of 2025 is allowed by quashing the order impugned herein. As a corollary, Application No.6180911 and Opposition No.1323965 are restored to the file of the Registrar of Trademarks for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to file the counter statement in response to the notice of the opposition within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registrar of Trademarks is directed to reconsider the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein. ”6. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the above order will hold good in respect of the present writ petition also. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of on the above terms by permitting the petitioner to file the counter statement in response to the notice of opposition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such counter statement by the petitioner, the 1st respondent/Registrar of Trade Marks is directed to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate order afresh, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent __________Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(IPD)No.18 of 2025herein. It is needless to state that the order being passed afresh by the 1st respondent will supersede the order dated 02.06.2023. There will be no order as to costs. List the matter on 13.10.2025 for filing compliance report before the Registry. 16.09.2025Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NokjToDeputy Registrar of Trade Marks & GIIntellectual Property Office Building, G.S.T Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032, Tamil Nadu.N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.Kj__________Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(IPD)No.18 of 2025WP(IPD) No. 18 of 202516.09.2025__________Page 7 of 7