KAMLESH THUKRAL Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twelve applications were advertised in the Trade Marks Journal dated 1st August, 2002 inviting oppositions. Last date for filing of opposition was 1 st December, 2002. Petitioner who is registered owner of trade mark 'Childcare' despatched 12 oppositions by 'Speed Post' on 25th November, 2002 to the Office of Trade Marks Registry. It is also alleged that Petitioner sent separate letter by registered. A.D. Post informing the Registrar of Trade Marks about despatch of such oppositions. It is further stated that these oppositions were received by the Trade Marks Office on 26th November, 2002. However, on 9th January, 2003 petitioner received back eleven oppositions from the Office of Trade Mark Registry, Mumbai along with covering letter with the remarks "Request of TN-5 is time barred". On 10th January, 2003 twelfth opposition was also received back with same remark. Since, it is the case of the petitioner that oppositions sent by it were duly delivered in the Trade Marks Office on 26th November, 2002 and the action of the respondent in returning back the said oppositions as time barred is illegal and hence present Writ Petition was filed.

(2.) The respondents have filed their counter affidavit explaining the position in the following manner :-

(3.) However, in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court, a detailed enquiry was conducted and it was discovered that the Notice of Opposition was actually received on 26.11.2002 whereas all the mails received on a date are to be entered in the diary on the same date, the oppositions received on 26.11.2002 were not entered in the diary on the same day in the Trade Marks Registry but was entered in the diary only on 11.12.2002 by the receiving clerk due to inadvertence. Reasons for delay in such recording in the diary was being an oversight by the concerned clerk.