The Delhi High Court addressed the issue of email service in accordance with Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TMA). The Court ruled that sending documents by email would not be considered a valid method of service when no email ID is provided in the notice of opposition.
Facts of the Case:
The case involves an appeal against an order issued by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks regarding an opposition filed by the appellant against an application of the respondent, who sought registration of their trademark.
The Deputy Registrar's order declared the opposition as abandoned under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules 2017 because the appellant did not provide any evidence in support of their opposition within the prescribed time, nor did they submit a statement indicating a reliance on the facts mentioned in the Notice of Opposition.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant's contention was that serving the counter statement to the notice of opposition via email was not a valid method of service according to Section 143 of the TMA, as email was not one of the recognized modes of service.
Observations of the Court:
Section 143 of the TMA states that an address for service, as stated in an application or notice of opposition, should be deemed the official address for the applicant or opponent. Documents related to the application or notice of opposition can be served by leaving them at or sending them by post to the provided address.
The High Court determined that when an email ID is provided by an applicant or opponent in the notice of opposition, service of documents at that email ID would suffice as service under Section 143 of the TMA. By providing an email ID, the party agrees to receive communications at that address, and this satisfies the requirement of service.
The court noted that in this case, the appellant did not provide an email ID in their notice of opposition, so sending documents via email, even if the email was accessible to the appellant, did not constitute valid service within the meaning of Section 143 of the TMA.
The Decision of the Court:
The High Court set aside the impugned order, which declared the opposition as abandoned due to the appellant's failure to provide evidence or a statement within the prescribed time.
However, since the documents were now admittedly received by the appellant, the Court directed the appellant to comply with the statutory requirements as per the TM and Rules.
Case Title: M/s Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vikram Suri Trading as M/s Armex Auto Industries
Coram: Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case no.: (Comm.IPD-TM) 69/2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Zeba Tarannum Khan and Sheril Bhatia
Advocate for the Respondents: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Srish Kumar Mishra, Alexander Mathai Paikaday, M Sriram, and Krishnan V
Picture Source :
