Writ Petition No. 2088 of 2012. Case: Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Kolkata Vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2088 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: Abhijit Chatterjee, N. B. Boral and Rakesh Pandey i/b Ashwin Ankhad and Associates and For Respondents: D. A. Athavale with A. R. Varma, Adv. |
| Judges | S. J. Vazifdar, J. and Mrs.. Mridula Bhatkar , J. |
| Issue | Trade Marks Act (47 of 1999) - Sections 130, 132; Trade Marks Rules (2002) - Rule 38 |
| Citation | AIR 2013 Bom 107 |
| Judgement Date | March 01, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S. J. Vazifdar, J.
-
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard finally.
-
The petitioner is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Registrars of Trade Marks at Mumbai and Kolkata respectively.
-
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to fix a date of hearing in respect of its application for registration of a trade mark "CMA" in class 41.
-
On 01.10.2010, the petitioner applied for registration of the said mark for goods and services. The petitioner by a letter dated 30.03.2011, inter alia stated that it had not received any response from the respondents in respect of its application for registration despite several enquiries having been made from time to time and that as a result thereof, it was unable to provide training and award degrees/certificates on the "newest branches of management and accountancy".
-
On 13.03.2012, the petitioner noticed on the respondents' website a letter/examination report dated 19.09.2011 from respondent No. 1 to its advocate in Kolkata stating that its application had been examined under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Trade Mark Rules, 2002 and that the mark was open to objection for the reasons mentioned therein. For the purpose of this writ petition, the objections are not relevant. The petitioner was requested to submit its response within one month from the date of receipt of the said letter/examination report or to apply for a hearing. It was further stated that if no reply was received or a request for a hearing was not applied for, the application would be treated as having been abandoned for lack of prosecution under Section 132 of the said Act.
-
Admittedly, the letter/examination report dated 19.09.2011 was not forwarded to the petitioner or its advocates. It was merely placed on the respondents' website.
-
The petitioner's advocate by a letter dated 28.03.2012 stated the above facts. It was inadvertently stated that he had logged into the respondents' website on 28.03.2012, whereas he had in fact done so on 13.03.2012. The same however is of no consequence. The petitioner's advocate requested the respondents to treat the date of downloading from the website as the date of the petitioner's knowledge of the order contained in the said letter/examination report dated 19.09.2011; exercised the option for furnishing the objections and...
To continue reading
Request your trial