Website posting alone is not written communication of a trade mark objection, so deemed abandonment did not arise.

Mere posting of a trade mark examination report on the website did not amount to communication in writing under Rule 38(4) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, because the Registrar had to send the objection or proposal to the applicant and no notice was actually served on the applicant or its advocates. There was no rule or established practice requiring daily website monitoring, and knowledge could not be imputed before the report was actually noticed online. As the applicant sought a hearing within one month of that date, the statutory basis for deemed abandonment under Rule 38(5) was not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere posting of the examination report on the trade marks website amounted to communication in writing to the applicant under Rule 38(4) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, and whether the application for registration could therefore be treated as abandoned under Rule 38(5).

Analysis: Rule 38(4) required the Registrar to communicate any objection or proposal in writing to the applicant. The notice was not sent to the applicant or its advocates and was only placed on the website. There was no rule or established practice obliging the applicant to inspect the website daily, and website posting by itself did not satisfy the requirement of written communication. The applicant could not be imputed with knowledge of the report before it was actually noticed on the website. Once the applicant sought a hearing within one month of that date, the statutory condition for deemed abandonment was not met.

Conclusion: Mere uploading of the examination report on the website was not valid communication under Rule 38(4), and the application for registration was not abandoned under Rule 38(5).

---