Person aggrieved requirement in trade mark rectification must subsist until final decision, with proceedings remitted for fresh disposal.

In rectification proceedings for removal of a trade mark under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the applicant must remain a "person aggrieved" until final decision, and that grievance must still subsist when removal is ordered. The SC held that the concept of "person aggrieved" has different implications under Sections 46 and 56, and that a lapse in the applicant's live grievance defeats justification for rectification. It further held that transfer of the proceedings to the IPAB did not remove the need to examine locus standi and subsequent events. The impugned order was set aside and the matter restored for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant for rectification/removal under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 had to remain a person aggrieved when the applications were finally decided; (ii) whether the rectification applications transferred to the IPAB required fresh consideration in view of the subsequent events and the nature of the objections raised.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant for rectification/removal under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 had to remain a person aggrieved when the applications were finally decided.

Analysis: The expression "person aggrieved" was held to have different connotations under Sections 46 and 56. For removal on the ground of non-use under Section 46, the applicant must show a practical grievance affecting its interest, and the grievance must subsist when the application is decided. If the applicant's cause of complaint does not survive during the pendency of the proceedings, there is no justification for rectification because the registered mark can no longer be said to prejudice the applicant.

Conclusion: The applicant had to remain a person aggrieved until final decision, and the IPAB was required to satisfy itself on that question before ordering removal.

Issue (ii): Whether the rectification applications transferred to the IPAB required fresh consideration in view of the subsequent events and the nature of the objections raised.

Analysis: The transfer of the rectification proceedings under Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 did not dispense with the need to examine locus standi and the effect of later events, including the respondent's change of name and its statement that no dispute remained. The record also indicated that the IPAB had not considered the matter under Section 56 with adequate focus, and the court declined to decide the merits itself, leaving all contentions open for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the rectification applications were restored to the IPAB for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of securing a fresh hearing before the IPAB, with the earlier removal order vacated and the rectification proceedings reopened for decision on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In rectification proceedings under Section 46 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the applicant must continue to be a person aggrieved up to the time of decision, and if that grievance has ceased, removal of the mark is not justified.

---