IPAB interprets extension clause in trademark disputes

By Omesh Puri, LexOrbis
0
3354
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

One of the significant changes brought by the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, was the removal of the extension provision in leading evidence in support of opposition/application. However, the Intellectual Appellate Board (IPAB) has recently interpreted the amended rules and held that the operation of rule 45(2) is not automatic as there exists a provision under section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which empowers the Registrar of Trade Marks to extend the time period for actions for which no specific time limit has been provided and filing of evidence in support of the opposition is one such action.

Omesh PuriAssociate partnerLexOrbis
Omesh Puri
Associate partner
LexOrbis

In an appeal filed by Sahil Kohli against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, IPAB was faced with the issue of interpretation of rule 45(1) and (2) of the rules, which came into force on 6 March 2017. Under rule 45 (2), if the opponent does not take any action within the prescribed time period, the opposition is deemed abandoned.

IPAB considered the flexibility of the rule 45(2) in line with the judgment on Sunrider Corporation v Hindustan Lever (2007), rendered by Delhi High Court in the context of interpretation of Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (old rules).

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

Omesh Puri is an associate partner at LexOrbis.

709/710 Tolstoy House
15-17 Tolstoy Marg
New Delhi – 110 001
India

Mumbai | Bengaluru

Contact details
Tel: +91 11 2371 6565
Fax: +91 11 2371 6556
Email: mail@lexorbis.com
Website: www.lexorbis.com

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link