* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th October, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 7460/2011
LAL BHAMBANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amitash , Adv.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with
Ms.Gayatri Verma, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition seeks mandamus to the respondent to issue Certificate of
Registration of Trademark „FA‟ in Class-03 to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims to have applied for registration in the year 1989.
It is further claimed, that in pursuance to the said application the mark was
advertised in the Trade Mark Journal on 1st October, 1993; that no objections
were received and as per the law a Registration Certificate should have been
issued to the petitioner after three months of such publication but was not
W.P.(C) No7460/2011 Page 1 of 4
issued; that representations were made by the agents of the petitioner in this
regard in the years 1995,1996 & 1997; that in 2003 the petitioner was
informed that the trademark was not registered; that in 2007 another
application for registration of the same trademark in Class-03 was made; that
in the year 2010-11 the petitioner learnt from the website of the respondent
that the status of the earlier application was shown as “abandoned”; that the
petitioner filed application on 16th February, 2011 in Form TM-57 for
review of order treating earlier application for registration as “abandoned”;
that no steps have been taken by the respondent on the review application.
3. The petitioner has not filed any proof of having made the
representations in the years 1995, 1996 & 1997.
4. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice contends
that the review can be applied for within 30 days of the order and the
respondent is not bound to entertain the review if made after 30 days. He
also points out that while in the review application (Form TM-57 at page 10
of the paper book) it is stated that the petitioner learnt of the status of earlier
application as “abandoned” on 15th February, 2011 but in the list of dates it
is stated that the petitioner in 2010-11 came to know the status of earlier
application as “abandoned”.
5. The petitioner has also not stated as to when the application was
treated as abandoned by the respondent. On enquiry, the counsel for the
petitioner states that it is for the respondent to tell.
6. The entire conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner inspite of
W.P.(C) No7460/2011 Page 2 of 4
knowledge that he was entitled to the certificate of registration in the year
1993, did not take steps whatsoever for having not been issued the
certificate. The Power of Attorney in favour of the registration service is
stated to have been filed and letters in the years 1995,1996 & 1997 stated to
have been written by the registration service but again the petitioner has
chosen not to place the same before this Court.
7. As per the case of the petitioner himself, the petitioner at least in the
year 2003 was informed vide letter dated 29th April, 2003 (which has also
not been placed before the Court) that the trademark had not been registered.
The petitioner even thereafter did not take any steps whatsoever and applied
for review only on 16th February, 2011. There is no explanation whatsoever
for waiting for seven years to file review application. Merely because the
petitioner claims to have checked on the website of the respondent on 15th
February, 2011 would not create any cause of action in favour of the
petitioner.
8. The counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to file a better
affidavit and documents.
9. When the petition is filed and comes up for admission, the petitioner
is expected to put up his case so as to convince the Court that a case for
issuance of notice is made out. The petitioner is represented by professionals
and the matter cannot be permitted to be pursued in such a lackadaisical
manner.
10. Moreover the petitioner by making a second application in the year
W.P.(C) No7460/2011 Page 3 of 4
2007 clearly abandoned the earlier application.
11. There is no merit in the petition.
12. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage, after obtaining telephonic
instructions, seeks to withdraw the petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 14, 2011
pp
W.P.(C) No7460/2011 Page 4 of 4
