Timelines Under Rule 100 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Are Mandatory, Cannot Be Waived: Delhi High Court

Justice Amit Bansal held,

“Rule 100 of the Rules which provides that the Registrar of Trade Marks is required to give at least one month's notice under Section 57(4) of the Act…In my considered view, the requirements and timelines prescribed under Rule 100 of the Rules are mandatory. There cannot be any question of waiver of such requirements and timelines by the appellant.”

Section 57(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 contemplates issuance of notice seeking to show cause why the registration of a trademark should not be cancelled being contrary to the provisions of the law.

In the case at hand, a notice under Section 57(4) was issued to the Appellant, after the private Respondent filed a rectification application against Appellant's trademark. Significant to note that this notice provided only three weeks' time to the appellant to file written submissions.

A hearing was held and the impugned order cancelling registration of Appellant's trademark was passed.

The Respondent argued that the appellant did not raise any objection before the Registrar that the aforesaid notice did not give time of at least one month and thus, the Appellant had waived his right to object to the notice period.

At the outset, the High Court noted that the Section 57(4) notice gave an opportunity to the Appellant to file response within 21 days, which was “in clear violation of the mandate of Rule 100 of the Rules which provides that the Registrar of Trade Marks is required to give at least one month's notice under Section 57(4) of the Act.”

Court said the aforesaid notice was not only in violation of the provisions of the Act, but was also against the principles of natural justice.

“By virtue of the said notice, the respondent no.1 was seeking to cancel the registration granted in favour of the appellant more than three years back. Therefore, it was only fair that the respondent no.1 gave to the appellant the bare minimum time prescribed under the statute to put forward his case. Surprisingly, the respondent no.1 did not even stick to the three weeks' time given for filing response and fixed the date of hearing within 17 days from the date of the aforesaid notice,” the Court added.

As such, the Court held that the impugned order is unsustainable.

Appearance: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Mr. Gaurav Sindhwani, Ms. Shivani Negi & Mr. Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Advocates for Appellant; Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Debasish Mishra, Advocate, Mr. R. Venkat Prabhat, SPC with Ms. Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra, and Mr. Divyanshu Sinha, Advocates for R-1. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vipin Wason, Ms. Stuti Wason, Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advocates for R-2 with Mr. Sanjay Pandita, AR of R-2.

Case title: Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 552

Case no.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2023

Click here to read order