RAYMOND LTD Vs. CHANAKYA BEVERAGES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 9th October, 1997 passed by the Asst. Registrar of Trade-marks.

(2.) THE facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Respondent No. 1 submitted an application for registration of its trade-mark. That application was advertised. The Petitioner on 11. 2. 1992 filed a notice of opposition as required by the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Trade Marks Act. A copy of the notice of opposition submitted by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Registrar to the Respondent No. 1 through his attorney alongwith letter dated 26. 4. 1993. The Notice of opposition was received by the attorney for the Respondent No. 1 on 5. 5. 1993. The Respondent No. 1 filed his counter-statement on 7. 7. 1993. On 15. 11. 1993, the Registrar issued a show cause notice to the Respondent No. 1 to show cause why his counter-statement filed on 7. 7. 1993 should not be taken on record as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation fixed by the statute. Admittedly, this show cause notice was received by the Respondent No. 1. Admittedly, no reply was filed by the Respondent No. 1. However, the learned advocate appearing for both parties appeared before the Registrar and the Registrar by an order dated 14. 12. 1994 held that in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act, the Respondent No. 1 is deemed to have abandoned his application as he has not filed his counter-statement within the statutory period of two months provided by Section 21. An application for review of the order dated 14. 12. 1994 was submitted by the Respondent No. 1. Grounds on which review of the order was sought were mentioned in the application. On being served with the review petition, the Petitioner filed its reply and contended that the order cannot be reviewed on the grounds which are mentioned in the review petition. That review petition has been decided by the order dated 9th October, 1997. By that order the review petition has been allowed and the order dated 14. 12. 1994 has been set aside. It is this order, which is impugned in this petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent No. 1 has been served. He undertakes to file affidavit of service within one week from today. None appears for the Respondent No. 1. There is also no affidavit in reply filed.