MODI WOODSPACE PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 09.04.2026 Judgment delivered on: 22.04.2026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 56/2025 MODI WOODSPACE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. Rohan Rohatgi and Ms. Muthu Praba, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Barathi, SPC with Mr. Chirantan Priyadarshan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the respondent/the Registrar of Trade Marks, in application no.6087367 filed by the appellant. 2. Shorn off all unnecessary details, the facts germane to the present dispute, are as under: a. The appellant filed a trademark application no.6087367 for the mark KAMA CASA (word) in Classes 20 and 35 on a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 56/2025 Signing Date:23.04.2026 Page 1 of 9 11:25:00 ‘Proposed to be used basis’ on 29.08.2023. Subsequently, vide the examination report dated 19.10.2023, the Trade Marks Registry raised objections under Section 11(a) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”). Pursuant thereto, the appellant filed its response dated 27.10.2023 to the Examination Report issued by the respondent. b. On 24.07.2024, the first hearing notice was served upon the appellant scheduling the date of hearing on 01.10.2024, to which the appellant filed an application under Form TM-M seeking extension of time, which was allowed. Similarly, various other hearing notices were served, however, the hearing was adjourned for some reason or the other. c. Finally, by the fourth