Case: D.R. Bhatia and Sons, Ludhiana Vs Derby Enterprises, Delhi. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. V.P. Ghiraiya, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 97(c), 101
Citation1982 (2) PTC 281 (Reg)
Judgement DateSeptember 25, 1981
CourtTrademark Tribunal


M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM.

These proceedings relate to the review petition filed on Form TM-57 on 27.2.1981 to review the order dated 24.1.1981 passed in Opposition No. DEL-2938 to Application No. 307273.

The grounds stated in the petition are as follows:

That the request for the extension of time was disallowed by the Hon'ble Registrar without showing any reason for the refusal of said request/nor the Registrar warned the Opponents that no further extension will be granted as and when the extension upto 26.12.1980 was granted vide their letter No. TOP/5245 dated 10.11.1980.

The orders for disallowing the said request was received on 24.1.1981 and on the same day the Registrar passed the orders that opposition No. DEL-2938 had been abandoned. Hence the Opponents failed to file the evidence with special request.

That in view of the above facts, opponents failed to file the evidences under Rule-53 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, in the matter of Opposition No. DEL-2938, who had normally filed the request on form TM-56 for the extension of time upto 25.2.1981 for filing the evidences. The Registrar had also not shown any reason why the said request is being refused.

Section 97(c) empowers the Registrar to review his own decision. The Act or the Rules do not specify any grounds for review of Registrar' decision. The Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings before the Registrar; but, the principles underlying the Code, insofar as they are principles of natural justice, must be observed by him. (In re National Carbon Co; Inc. AIR 1934 Cal. 725). Under Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a review petition can be entertained on the basis of the following grounds:-

(1) on the ground of discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or

(2) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or

(3) for any other sufficient reason.

In paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Statement annexed to the Review Petition, the ground taken up by the Opponents/Petitioners is that their request on Form TM-56 filed on 30.12.1980 was refused without showing any reason or issuing warning that no further extension would be granted. The provisions of granting extension of time are found in Section 101 and Rule 106. These provisions are...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT