Mandatory notice before trade mark removal: failure to serve Form O-3 made the cancellation invalid and required restoration.

Prior notice to the registered proprietor in the prescribed form was a mandatory precondition for removal of a trade mark from the register for non-renewal under section 25(3) read with Rule 64(1). A general public notice did not satisfy the statutory requirement of notice to the proprietor at the registered address. Because removal from the register has civil consequences, non-compliance with the prescribed notice procedure was a jurisdictional defect, rendering the removal invalid and supporting restoration and renewal of the mark.

---

---

Issues: Whether removal of a registered trade mark from the register for non-renewal was valid without prior notice in Form O-3 to the registered proprietor under section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 64(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002.

Analysis: Section 25(3) required the Registrar to send notice in the prescribed manner to the registered proprietor before removal of the trade mark from the register, and Rule 64(1) prescribed notice in Form O-3 to the registered proprietor at the address entered in the register. The record did not show that such notice had been served on the petitioner. A general public notice did not satisfy the statutory requirement of notice to the registered proprietor. Removal of the mark from the register had civil consequences and could not be effected without compliance with the mandatory procedure. The failure to follow the prescribed notice requirement was therefore a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The removal of the trade mark was invalid and the petitioner was entitled to restoration and renewal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes prior notice to the registered proprietor a mandatory precondition for removal of a trade mark from the register, removal without such notice is illegal and void.

---