RAJ VARDHAN PATODIA (HUF) vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st April, 2025 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2024 & I.A. 3376/2024 RAJ VARDHAN PATODIA (HUF) .....Appellant Through: Mr. C. M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mimani, Mr. Prashant Alai & Ms. Annaya Mehan, Advocates. versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit Nagpal, SPC with Ms. Aastha Sood, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Manish Singhal & Mr. Lakshay Mangla, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘Act’) challenging the order dated 3rd November 2023 passed by the respondent no.1 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) in opposition no. 1032117 (hereinafter ‘subject opposition’) filed by the appellant against the trade mark application bearing no. 3328761 (hereinafter ‘subject application’) filed by the respondent no.2. 2. Brief facts, as stated by the appellant, leading up to the present appeal are as follows: 2.1. The respondent no.2, on 4th August 2016, filed the subject application and the same was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1924 dated 21st Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2024 Page 1 of 9 By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Date:01.05.2025 12:37:34 October 2019. 2.2. The appellant filed a notice of opposition against the subject application filed by the respondent no.2 on 20th February 2020. 2.3. A copy of the counter statement dated 15th June 2020 filed by the respondent no.2 was served upon the appellant on 13th February 2023. 2.4. The evidence affidavit in support of opposition dated 29th March 2023 (hereinafter ‘EISO’) under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (hereinafter ‘Rules’) was sent by the appellant to the r