Trade Mark Application Abandoned Due to Procedural Delay: A Crucial Reminder for Proprietors

In a recent order dated 24 June 2025, the Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, abandoned the trademark application of ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (Application No. 6030753) under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for delay in filing the counter-statement within the prescribed statutory period. The opposition was filed by ACME UNIVERSAL SAFEZONE 9 PVT. LTD. (Opposition No. 1312323) and J.P. Associates appeared as the legal representative for the opponent, presenting strong arguments that ultimately led to the decision in the favour of the opponent.

Factual Matrix

• The applicant was served with a Notice of Opposition on 19 June 2024.
• Under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, the counter-statement was required to be filed within two months, i.e., by 19 August 2024.
• The applicant filed the counter-statement on 20 August 2024, citing that 19 August was a public holiday in Delhi on account of Raksha Bandhan and relied on various precedents and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to seek condonation of the one-day delay.

Applicant’s Arguments and Precedents Cited

The applicant sought to justify the delay by arguing that:

• Since 19 August 2024 was a recognized public holiday in Delhi, judicial and quasi-judicial bodies were closed, justifying the filing on the next working day.
• Cited the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 10, which provides that if the final day of a prescribed period falls on a day when the office is closed, the filing on the next working day shall be deemed valid.
• Relied on a series of judicial precedents involving condonation of delay and computation of limitation, concerning the principle of “sufficient cause”:
  • Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107]
  • Vedabhai v. Shantaram Patil [(2001) 9 SCC 106]
  • Md. Ayub v. State of U.P. [(2009) 17 SCC 70]
  • S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunj [(1987) 2 SCC 109]
  • Huda & Another Vs Dr .Babeswar Kanhar & Oth 2005(1) SCC 191
  • Fulchand Bhagwandas Gugale Vs State of Maharashtra (2005(1) SCC193)
  • H.H. Raja Harinder Singh Vs S. Karnail Singh And Others

Opponent’s Contentions by J.P. Associates

Appearing on behalf of the opponent, Adv. Praveen Agrawal of J.P. Associates presented detailed submissions against the condonation of delay. Following are the submissions:

1. J.P. Associates strongly argued that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies only when the concerned government office is officially closed on the last day of the prescribed period. J.P. Associates corroborated this by demonstrating that the Trade Marks Registry was fully operational on 19 August 2024 i.e., the day of Raksha Bandhan, and that hearings were conducted on the same day, confirming its functionality.
2. It was emphasized that the applicant relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court calendar to establish the holiday. However, the Trade Marks Registry functions under the Central Government, and not all state holidays apply. J.P. Associates asserted that the applicant’s reliance on the High Court holiday schedule was legally untenable, as it had no relevance to the operational status of the central registry. 
3. The opponent drew a clear distinction between civil litigation under general laws (such as the Limitation Act or CPC) and proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, which is a special statute. The cited case law, though applicable in civil disputes, was argued to be inapplicable in the present context because:
4. Section 21(2) uses the expression “shall be deemed to have been abandoned” which is mandatory expression.
5. There is no provision under the Trade Marks Act permitting condonation of delay in filing a counter-statement.
6. Therefore, the Registrar lacks discretion to condone a delay, even of a single day, unless there is statutory authority to do so. 

Registrar’s Decision

Accepting the opponent’s submissions, the Registrar held that:

• The Trade Marks Registry was open on 19 August 2024, and hence Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was inapplicable.
• The word “shall” in Section 21(2) confers no discretion to the Registrar to condone the delay.
• The precedents cited were distinguishable and not applicable to a special statutory framework.
• As a result, the counter-statement filed on 20 August 2024 was beyond the statutory time limit and the application was deemed to be abandoned. 

Conclusion

This ruling reaffirms the non-negotiable nature of procedural compliance under trademark law. The failure of the applicant to file within the stipulated period, even by one day, resulted in an abandonment of the application. The opposition’s victory in this case, led by J.P. Associates, demonstrates how strict statutory construction and effective advocacy can shape the outcome.

Author: Yashica Dhawan, B.B.A. LL.B Student at Indian Institute Of Management Rohtak

Link to the judgement: https://jpassociates.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ORDER-COPY-6030753-1312323.pdf

Link to CGPDTM’s official website: https://www.ipindia.gov.in