Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai

Judgment text excerpt

Judgement-17-COMMP-23-2026+F.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 23 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2089 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 23 OF 2026 Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus 1. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 2. Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd. …Respondents Mr. Hiren Kamod, a/w Thomas George & Neeti Nihal, Tanvi Sinha, Navankur Pathak, Bargavi Bharadwaj, i/b Saikrishna & Associates, for Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. Atul Singh a/w Arzoo Gupta & Mitika Agarwal, i/b Nidhi Bangera, for Respondent No.2. Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI JANARDAN JANARDAN VALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date: 2026.06.17 CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. 15:16:35 +0530 DATE: JUNE 17, 2026 JUDGEMENT: Context and Factual Background: 1. The captioned Commercial Miscellaneous Petition is essentially a statutory appeal filed by the Petitioner, Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. (“Registrant”), under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“TM Act”). Page 1 of 51 June 17, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati Judgement-17-COMMP-23-2026+F.doc 2. The Appeal is directed against an order dated August 26, 2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No. 1, the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (“Registrar”), allowing an Interlocutory Application dated March 16, 2024 (“Interlocutory Application”) filed by the Respondent No. 2, Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd (“Rectification Applicant”). 3. In a nutshell, in the course of conducting Rectification Proceedings, the Registrar has permitted an affidavit of evidence (“Evidence Affidavit”) sought to be filed by the Rectification Applicant under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”) despite a delay of over three years, invoking powers under Sec