CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8361/97 whereby the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the decision taken by the Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The short facts can be summarised as under.

(3.) On 28.03.1988, the application was made by the appellant -original petitioner for registration of mark CONAZOLE. On 01.10.1995, the application was advertised in trademark journal. On 26.12.1995, opposition was submitted by respondent No. 3. On 06.11.1996, the copy of the opposition was sent to the appellant -original petitioner by Trade Mark Registry. On 13.12.1996, counter statement was filed by the appellant -original petitioner. On 07.01.1997, the copy the of the counter statement was sent to the respondent No. 3 by Trade Mark Registry. On 10.01.1997, counter statement was received by the respondent No. 3. On 11.03.1997, respondent No. 3 was required to file evidence under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). On 21.03.1997, i.e., after the expiry of the period of two months, the application was filed for extension of time by respondent before the Trade Mark Registry. On 29.03.1997, the petitioner sent a letter to the Trade Mark Registrar requesting him to treat the opposition as abandoned by invoking the provisions of Rule 53 (2) of the Rules. On 30.04.1997, evidence under Rule 53(1) was forwarded to the Trade Mark Registry by the respondent No. 3. On 07.05.1997, the time was extended for filing evidence by respondent No. 3 and on 09.05.1997, the Trade Mark Registry acknowledged the receipt of the evidence on record. On 29.05.1997, the original petitioner filed application seeking direction of the Registrar to treat the opposition of abandonment under Rule 53(2) of the Rules. The said interlocutory application was heard by the Registrar and vide order dated 08.10.1997, the Registrar dismissed the interlocutory application. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Registrar, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.8361/97 and the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dismissed the petition. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.