Calcutta High Court: In an appeal filed under Section of the after being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 14-02-2024 that was passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (‘Senior Examiner’) (respondent 2) wherein the Trade Mark application under Class 9 for registration of trade mark ‘ELECTRONICA’ was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Krishna Rao, J. set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to respondent 2 since the order was passed after a year from the date of hearing and without allowing the appellant to make a proper submission.
Background
The appellant submitted that on 15-02-2023, the Senior Examiner had taken up the application for hearing through virtual mode but there was some disturbance in the connectivity due to which, the appellant could not place all the relevant documents.
Further, on 17-02-2023, the appellant informed the Senior Examiner that he was unable to make proper submission due to some network error and requested another opportunity for hearing. Even though the request was received by the Senior Examiner, no response for the same was given.
The Senior Examiner passed the impugned order after one year i.e. on 14-02-2024 wherein the application filed by the appellant for registration of trade mark ‘ELECTRONICA’ was rejected.
Analysis and Decision
The appellant had raised several grounds in the present appeal but the Court found that it would not be proper to go into further merit of the matter since the Court was inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 14-02-2024 on the ground that the impugned order was passed after one year of the hearing.
The Court further stated that it was expected that the Senior Examiner or any other competent officer under law would pass a reasoned and speaking order by giving an opportunity of hearing to all connected parties within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the same. The Court also directed the application filed by the appellant to be heard and for a reasoned and speaking order to be passed after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
[Electronica India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, IPDTMA 4 of 2024, Order dated 18-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant — Sr. Advocate Ranjan Bachawat, Advocate Shuvasish Sengupta, Advocate Sagnik Basu, Advocate Soupayan S. Roy, Advocate Arya Banerjee
For Respondent — Advocate Sunil Singhania, Advocate Sailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Shivansi Indoria
The post appeared first on .