DR SMITA NARAM vs REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th March, 2025 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 106/2022 DR SMITA NARAM .....Appellant Through: Dr. Sheetal Vohra, Advocate. versus REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Gokul Sharma, Mr. Zubin Singh and Mr. Debasish Mishra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, impugning the order passed by the Trademark Registry on 5th April, 2016, whereby the opposition no. DEL 129200 dated 8th October, 2003 filed on behalf of the appellant has been dismissed under Rule 56(4) of the Trademark Rules, 2002. 2. The aforesaid opposition had been filed by the appellant against the application no.701490 dated 13th May, 1996 for the mark ‘AYURSHAKTI’ filed by the respondent no.3. 3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are set out below: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 106/2022 Page 1 of 5 By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:12.03.2025 12:45:55 3.1. The appellant came across the respondent no.3’s application for the mark ‘AYURSHAKTI’ advertised in the Journal 29th June, 2003. 3.2. The appellant opposed the aforesaid application by filing opposition no. DEL 129200 on 8th October, 2003. 3.3. The appellant received a letter dated 10th October, 2003 from the respondent no.1 on 17th December, 2003, informing the appellant that the notice of opposition had been served on the respondent no.3. 3.4. the appellant's advocates received the copy of the counter statement filed by the respondent no.3 under the cover letter dated 13th April, 2004 from Respondent no.1. 3.5. The appellant filed her evidence by way of affidavit dated 26th June, 2004 on 5