M/S ZINE DAVIDOFF S.A. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22nd April, 2025 + W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2021 M/S ZINE DAVIDOFF S.A. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair and Mr. Parth Bajaj, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Mr. Ayush Pandita and Mr. Satvik Rai, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9th March, 2012 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter ‘IPAB’). 2. By way of the impugned order, the IPAB allowed the rectification petition no. ORA/265/2010/TM/DEL/1994 filed by the respondent no.2 and removed the petitioner’s mark ‘DAVIDOFF’ bearing no.454875 from the Register. It was held that the impugned mark was wrongly renewed long after the statutory deadline for seeking renewal had expired. Thus, the mark was treated to have lapsed. 3. Mr. Ranjan Narula, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the application for registration of the aforesaid mark in class 25 was filed on 30th Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2021 Page 1 of 4 By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:28.04.2025 14:49:54 May, 1986 and would have been valid till 30th May, 1993. However, the registration certificate for the said mark was only issued on 31st December, 1997. 4. Upon receiving the said certificate, the petitioner applied for renewal of the mark on 29th June, 1998 for a period of seven years from 30th May, 1993 to 30th May, 2000 which was within the statutory period of six months as evident from the letter dated 10th April, 2001 (Annexure P-14). 5. Thereafter, the petitioner further filed another application for renewal of the mark