Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'Single Line Order' Of Trademark Registry, Says Any Decision Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Trademark Registry, observing that it was passed in a haste, contained only a single sentence without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard.

Justice Tejas Karia said that any decision without affording an effective hearing opportunity, without giving reasons is contrary to the fundamental tenets of natural justice.

“It is imperative that due process is followed, and all parties are given sufficient opportunity to present their case and thereafter a speaking and reasoned order is passed. It is imperative that due process is followed, and all parties are given sufficient opportunity to present their case,” the Court said.

Justice Karia was dealing with an appeal filed by ABC Mechanicals against an order passed by the Examiner of Trade Marks dismissing its application for amendment of Counter Statement.

In 1983, ABC Mechanicals had filed the application seeking Trade Mark registration for 'ABC' for the goods, electric fans of all kinds and parts. An opposition was filed by ABC Trade Agencies against the advertisement of the application in the Trade Marks Journal.

Since no evidence was filed by the latter, the Registrar of Trade Marks issued the Registration Certificate and “ABC” mark was registered and was renewed from time to time.

Later, ABC Trade Agencies filed a rectification petition and the mark in question was directed to be removed from the Register of the Trade Marks. In ABC Mechanical's appeal, the matter was remanded back to the Trade Marks Registry to be decided afresh.

ABC Mechanical filed an interlocutory application in the rectification proceedings, seeking permission to file additional documents. 

At the stage of arguments, the Counsel for ABC Trade Agencies took a preliminary objection that the additional affidavit of one Gurpreet Singh was accompanied by a copy of agreement which was not pleaded in the counter statement in the rectification proceedings. It was contended that ABC Mechanicals ought to have filed an amendment application.

Thereafter, ABC Mechanicals filed the application for amendment of Counter Statement which was dismissed by the Examiner of Trade Marks.

It was ABC Mechanicals' case that the Impugned Order contained a single line and was wholly unreasoned, as it provided no basis for rejection of the application and did not meet the standard of a speaking order.

It was also submitted that the Impugned Order was passed without giving ABC Mechanicals an opportunity of being heard and was an unreasoned and non- speaking order, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Allowing the plea, Justice Karia noted that the impugned order was devoid of any reasoning and did not disclose consideration of ABC Mechanicals' submissions.

The Court said that a non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic order passed or judgment delivered without taking into account the relevant facts, evidence available and the applicable law cannot be sustained.

“The fundamental principle of audi alteram partem demands that adequate opportunity be provided to the concerned parties to present their case and respond to adverse material. Where such opportunity is denied or the procedural requirements are not complied with, the resultant order is in violation of the principles of natural justice,” the Court said.

The Court set aside the Impugned Order, observing that it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and was unsustainable.

The judge remanded the matter back to the Examiner for passing a reasoned order after giving the Parties an opportunity of being heard and considering all the material available on record before making the decision.

Title: ABC MECHANICALS v. ABC TRADE AGENCIES AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1263

Click here to read order