![](\"http:\/\/bananaip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Picture1.png\")
\u00a0\u201d, due to non-filing of the counter statement within the prescribed time from the date of notice of opposition.<\/p>\nThe present appeal is filed by the Appellant, Dabur India Ltd, under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenging the deemed to be abandoned order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks against their trademark application no. 4584372 for registration of the label mark\/packaging \u201cODONIL MYSTIC ROSE \/ \u00a0\u201d, due to non-filing of the counter statement within the prescribed time from the date of notice of opposition.<\/p>\n
The Counsel for Dabur argued that the notice of opposition was never served to them due to a discrepancy in the email ID. It was explained, that the email ID recorded at the time of filing of the application was different from what was recorded during the time of acceptance and advertising. Whereas, the Counsel representing Respondent No.2, M\/s. Vanesa Care Private Limited, the opponent, in the opposition proceeding, argued that since Dabur did not dispute the receipt of the final order, which was also served through email, the email ID in the records is correct and therefore, the application is rightfully abandoned.<\/p>\n
The Hon\u2019ble Delhi High Court opined that the facts indicated an error on the part of Respondent No.1, the Trade Marks Registry in communicating the notice of opposition, owing to a discrepancy in recording Dabur\u2019s email ID. Furthermore, it was observed that, the Trade Marks Registry did not have a record of dispatch of email to Dabur. Hence, the fact that Dabur received the final rejection order does not mitigate the fact that the notice of opposition was not properly served.<\/p>\n
The Court held that, \u201cService of notice is a fundamental requirement that ensures an Applicant has a fair opportunity to respond to opposition proceedings.\u201d The Court also stated that \u201cThe principles of natural justice and fair play require that the Applicant be given an opportunity to contest the opposition, which was denied due to procedural lapses by the Registry.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n Therefore, in light of the above circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the Trade Marks Registry to serve the copy of the notice of opposition to Dabur and allow the counter-statement to be filed as per the Rules.<\/p>\n Citation: Dabur India Ltd vs The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., High Court of Delhi, 30th April, 2024, [C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 8\/2024]<\/em><\/p>\n Authored by Ms. Bhavishya B., Associate, BananaIP Counsels.<\/span><\/p>\n Reviewed and Confirmed by Ms. Benita Alphonsa Basil, BananaIP Counsels.<\/span><\/p>\n The case note\/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.<\/p>\n If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with a Trademark Attorney<\/a>, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com<\/a> or 91-80-26860414\/24\/34.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Delhi High Court restored Dabur’s trademark application for Odonil Mystic Rose, citing procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in serving the notice of opposition. The judgment reinforces the importance of fair opportunity and natural justice in trademark proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":18,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,11],"tags":[183,5401,486,5,12135,1731,6335,4912],"class_list":["post-107457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-bananaip-counsels","tag-dabur","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-intellectual-property","tag-odonil-mystic-rose","tag-trade-marks-act-1999","tag-trademark-law-india","tag-trademark-opposition"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107457"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":144526,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107457\/revisions\/144526"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Disclaimer<\/h4>\n