COD.NO.7/2013 IN SR.NO.90/2013/TM/CH. Case: M/s Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt.Ltd. Vs 1. M/s A.V.Thomas & CO.Ltd., Kerala, 2. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Rights Building, Industrial Estate, Chenai. Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Case NumberCOD.NO.7/2013 IN SR.NO.90/2013/TM/CH
CounselFor the Appellant: MR.Jacob Kurian representing Mr.K.G.Bansal
JudgesMr. K.N.Basha, Chairman and Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Technical Member
IssueTrade Marks Act - Section 91
Judgement DateFebruary 03, 2015
CourtIntellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases


Shri K.N. Basha, Chairman:

  1. Mr. Jacob Kurian, the learned counsel representing Mr.K.G. Bansal, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition is filed to condone the delay of one day in preferring the appeal against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai dated 27/11/2012.

  2. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned order dated 27/11/2012 was received by the petitioner on 13/12/2012. It is contended that as per the provision of the section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, the appeal has to be filed within a period of 3 months commencing from the date of the receipt of the impugned order and accordingly the appeal has to be preferred on or before 13/3/2013. It is submitted that in the present matter, the appeal paper books have been sent through the courier service on 12/3/2013 and the same was received by the Registry of this Bench on 14/3/2013. The learned counsel would contend that the date on which the impugned order received was 13/12/2012 and the date on which the Registry received the appeal papers i.e. 14/3/2013 is to be excluded. Then the computation will reveal that the delay was for only one day. The learned counsel would contend that the delay is neither willful nor wanton. But only due to the delay in sending the appeal paper by the courier service and it was represented by the courier service that the papers would be delivered within 24 hours.

  3. On verification of the Registry records, it reveals that the notice was served regarding the condonation on delay petition and the date of hearing on the first respondent. But, inspite of the same, neither the first respondent appeared in person nor through any advocate.

  4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the contents of the petition.

  5. The fact remains that the impugned order was passed on 27/11/2012 and the same was dispatched and received by the...

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