The Madras High Court recently examined a case in which a trademark application was wrongly treated as abandoned, despite the applicant complying with all procedural requirements.<\/p>\n
The Appellant, P.G. Purushan (a) P.G. Purushan Vaidyar, engaged in the manufacture of health mixes, supplemental powders, and cereals, had adopted the mark \u201cSTIMULAID\u201d and filed Trade Mark Application No. 5840318 on 9th March 2023 in Class 30. The application was examined, and an examination report dated 16th September 2023 required the deletion of certain words from the description of goods on the ground that they fell under Class 5 rather than Class 30.<\/p>\n
Within the prescribed period of 30 days, the Appellant responded to the examination report and expressly agreed to delete the disputed words from the description. Accordingly, the Appellant filed Form TM-M, restricting the specification to \u201cHealth Mix\u201d as suggested by the Examiner, and requested that the application be accepted and advertised. A hearing was subsequently fixed on 14th August 2024, which was attended by the Appellant\u2019s Trade Mark Attorney. However, a further hearing was scheduled that the Appellant did not attend.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the Registrar passed an abandonment order dated 21st January 2025, rejecting the application on the ground that the requirements raised in the examination report under Rule 33 had not been complied with. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Madras High Court.<\/p>\n
Whether a trademark application can be deemed abandoned when:<\/p>\n
The Court noted that the Appellant had complied with the objections raised in the examination report. The fact that the Appellant attended one of the hearings further indicated that there was no intention to abandon the trademark application. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the Registrar was set aside. The Court held that the conclusion of abandonment was unsustainable both in law and in fact. The Registrar was directed to proceed with consideration of the Appellant\u2019s trademark application, and if all formal requirements were complied with, to accept the application and advertise the mark in the Trade Marks Journal.<\/p>\n