Summary
The Calcutta High Court ruled that foreign notarized documents need not be apostilled to be valid in Indian legal proceedings. This decision came in the Marriott v. Sunjoy Hans trademark opposition case, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
In the case of Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. Sunjoy Hans and Others, the Calcutta High Court dealt with an important procedural issue i.e., can a document notarized in a foreign country be rejected because it is not apostilled? The Court said no, and clarified that such procedural objections cannot be used to dismiss trademark oppositions.
Background
Marriott Worldwide Corporation, part of the well-known Marriott Group, opposed the registration of the trademark “New Marrion” filed by Sunjoy Hans. The impugned mark was applied for in Class 43, covering services such as hotels and restaurants, services also offered by Marriott under its globally recognized trademark “MARRIOTT”. The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks dismissed Marriott’s opposition, stating that the affidavit filed in support of the opposition was not apostilled and therefore could not be accepted.
Issues before the Court
-
-
- Whether the evidence submitted by Marriott, notarized in Maryland, USA, was valid under Indian law.
- Whether the Registrar of Trademarks was right in rejecting the evidence solely on the ground that it was not apostilled.
- Whether such rejection violated principles of natural justice.
-
Marriott’s Arguments
-
-
- The affidavit supporting the opposition was notarized in Maryland, USA, as per legal requirements.
- There was no legal basis to insist on apostille when notarization had already been completed under local law.
- The rejection of evidence without considering its validity violated natural justice.
- There was sufficient legal jurisprudence to show that notarized documents from foreign countries must be accepted.
-
Respondent’s Arguments
-
-
- Argued that the appeal had become infructuous as the mark had already been registered.
- Maintained that the Registrar acted within his rights in refusing to accept non-apostilled documents.
-
Court’s Analysis
The court observed that the Registrar dismissed the opposition without examining its merits. The only reason given was the lack of apostille on the affidavit filed by Marriott, despite it being notarised in Maryland, USA.
The court stated that:
-
-
- As per Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, there is no mandatory requirement to apostille documents already notarized before a recognized Notary Public.
- Under Rule 120(3)(b) of the Trademarks Rules, 2017, notarized affidavits from outside India are legally valid if signed before a Notary Public in that country.
- The Evidence Act, 1872, in Section 57, presumes the authenticity of foreign notarized documents unless proven otherwise.
-
The court said that dismissing opposition solely due to lack of apostille, especially when valid notarization exists, was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
The court also noted that the Registrar had accepted the respondent’s delayed filings even though the law did not permit such extensions, thereby unfairly shifting the burden of proof to Marriott.
Conclusion
The Court set aside the Registrar’s order rejecting Marriott’s opposition. It remanded the matter back to the Registrar for fresh hearing, directing that the notarized affidavit should be taken on record. The Court ordered completion of proceedings within four months.
Case Citation: Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. Sunjoy Hans and Others, Calcutta High Court, IPDTMA/6/2025, Judgment dated 12 August 2025. Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50893442/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, BananaIP Counsels
