VISAGE BEAUTY AND HEALTHCARE PVT LTD vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 9th April, 2025 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 84/2024 VISAGE BEAUTY AND HEALTHCARE PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Ms. Aamna Hasan and Ms. Aarya Deshmukh, Advocates. versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates for R-1. 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 read with Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 challenging the order dated 19th September 2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) whereby the appellant’s trade mark application bearing no.4309324 was abandoned holding that the counter statement to the notice of opposition filed on behalf of the appellant/ applicant was time barred. 2. Notice in the present appeal was issued to the respondents and was accepted on behalf of the respondent no.1 in Court on 17 th December 2024. 3. The appellant primarily carries out its business activities under the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 84/2024 Page 1 of 9 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:21.04.2025 12:50:29 mark O3+. 4. The appellant adopted the marks O3+/ / in the year 2005 when no such mark was known or being used in relation to the goods and services of the appellant. 5. The mark , which is the subeect matter of the present appeal, was adopted by the appellant in the year 2019 as a part of its O3+ family/ series marks (hereinafter ‘subeect mark’). The subeect mark is the original artistic creation of the appellant. 6. Brief facts, as stated in the present appeal, which are necessary for adeudicating the present appeal are as foll