CHINAR TRUST Vs. USHA RECTIFIER CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arises out of a common order dated 24.4.2000 allowing the CM (M) Nos. 252, 253 & 254/1990 filed by respondent holding that he is entitled to extension of time in submitting evidence in the opposition filed by him against Appellant's application for registration of Trademark (Usha Shriram) under number 427541 in Class 7.

(2.) Appellant has filed application for registration of the Trademark (Usha Shriram) under numbers 427541, 427533 and 427532 in Classes 7,9 and 11 and respondent filed notice of opposition against these. Respondent was required to file evidence in support of its opposition under Rule 53 of Trademark Rules, but is said to have dragged its feet by filing three times requests on Form TM 56 seeking extension of time of file evidence on 4.10.1988, 28.11.1988 and 30.1.1989. After availing of these extension, this respondent again sought extension of time on 21.3.1989 by two months more upto 6.6.1989 on the ground that it was still in the process of collecting evidence. The Registrar is said to have considered this request and granted one month's time instead of two months which was allegedly intimated to respondent's Advocate through letter dated 5.4.1989. Respondent did not avail it and did not file evidence and Registrar by order dated 6.5.1989 held the opposition of the respondent as deemed abandoned under Rule 53(2) of the Trademark Rules.

(3.) The respondent sought review of this order on 30.5.1989 which was rejected by order 15.9.1989. The respondent then filed Writ Petitions CM(M) No. 252, 253 and 254/1990. The learned Single Judge allowed these petitions holding that as letter dated 5.4.1989 of the Registrar was not served on the respondent its evidence could not be deemed abandoned. The learned Single Judge accordingly granted this respondent extension of time and allowed it to submits its evidence and directed Registrar to adjudicate upon the matter under law by impugned order date 24.4.2000.