RAJARAPPA STEELS PVT. LTD. Vs. KAMDHENU ISPAT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of a proposed opposition dated 26th July, 2005 filed by M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Company Act, 1956 at 5/2, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi -110 026 (hereinafter referred to as "the Opponents") in the above matter. The facts are briefly that the Applicants' trade mark inter alia consisting of the words "KAMDHENU KC" label per se filed under Application No. 1291667 in class 19 was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1328 Supplementary (2) dated 14th February, 2005, which was made available to the public on 15th April, 2005. The above named Opponents filed a request on Form TM -44 for extension of time by one month for filing notice of opposition and followed by its notice of opposition was filed to the said application on 26th July, 2005 under Section 21(1) of the Act. The question now only arises as to whether the request on Form TM -44 alongwith the notice of opposition filed by the above named Opponents on 26th July, 2005 is within the statutory period or not.

(2.) PURSUANT to this office letter No. TOP/4067 dated 11th August, 2005 M/s. Delhi Registration Service, Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, New Delhi instructed by the above named Opponents submitted a detailed reply under their Attorney's letter dated 26th August, 2005 stating that Sub -rule (6) of Rule 47 is in fact subordinate or aiding to Section 21(1) of the Act and thus the same cannot and do not over ride Section 21(1) of the Act and that the maximum period of 4 months prescribed by the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Act read with Sub -rule (1) ofR.47 of Trade Marks Rules, 2002 is well within the time and the notice of opposition alongwith the request on Form TM -44 filed on 20th July, 2005 and followed by its notice of opposition on 26th July, 2005 may be taken on record and the matter be proceeded with in accordance with the law.

(3.) MR . H.P. Shukla, Advocate, 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.