ANIL KUMAR CHANANI Vs. TOMMY HILFIGER LICENSING INC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of a proposed Opposition dated 29th April, 2005 filed by M/s. Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of State of Delaware, at University Plaza, Bellvue Building, 262 Chapman Road, Suite 103 -A, Newark, Delaware 19702. U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicant's trade mark 'TONY' filed under Application No. 1076367 in class 25 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1325 Supplementary (1) dated 20th December, 2004, which made available to the public on 24th January, 2005. A notice of opposition with a request on Form TM -44 for extension of time for filing the notice of opposition was filed to the aforesaid application on 29th April, 2005 on various grounds. These proceedings relates to the question whether the request on Form TM -44 alongwith the notice of opposition filed by the Opponents on 29.4.2005 is within the statutory period or not.

(2.) PURSUANT to this office letter No. TOP/1762 dated 2nd June, 2005 M/s. Amarchand Mangaldas and Suresh A. Shroff and Co., Advocates and Solicitors, New Delhi instructed by the Opponents submitted their reply under their letter dated 27th June, 2005 stating that the maximum period of four months prescribed by the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Sub -rule (1) ofR.47 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 is well within the time and the notice of opposition alongwith a request on Form TM -44 filed on 29th April, 2005 be taken on record and the matter be proceeded with in accordance with the law.

(3.) MR . Suhaan Mukerji, the learned Counsel for the Opponents submitted that Sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits the filing of an extension of an application beyond the three months period but within such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate. It is evident from a plain reading of Section 21(1) that the Legislature has not intended to prescribe the time limit of only three months for filing of a notice of opposition and certainly not prescribed any time limit for filing the application for extension of time.