Trademark opposition rejections based on four-month limitation period ruled incorrect under pandemic extensions

Delhi HC held that trademark opposition rejections based on four-month limitation period were incorrect given SC's pandemic-related limitation extensions. Court permitted opposition filing on technical grounds while clarifying this would not affect merits of pending disputes between parties. Opposition proceedings to continue per law without impacting existing suit or other disputes. Matters listed for status reports from CGPTDM office.

---

---

Issues:
1. Review application by officers of CGPDTM for lapses in communicating incorrect facts to the Court.
2. Large number of pending oppositions in the CGPDTM office.

Analysis:
1. Review Application:
- The review application was filed by officers of CGPDTM seeking a review of the order imposing costs on them for lapses in communication.
- The Court noted a lack of communication and conflicting notices within the CGPDTM office.
- The officials were cautioned to ensure clear and transparent communication in the future.
- The imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on each officer were upheld, pending a decision on whether to be paid collectively or individually.
- Procedure outlined for handling cases where registration certificates were issued but oppositions were filed later.

2. Pending Oppositions:
- Affidavits detailed the large number of pending oppositions in different trademark registries.
- Recruitment of 30 new Hearing Officers on a contract basis was sanctioned to address the pending cases.
- Plans for recruitment of Assistant Registrars and promotion of existing officers were outlined to manage the workload.
- A target set to dispose of approximately 196,000 pending applications by the end of 2025.
- The CGPDTM proposed a mediation and settlement drive for quicker disposal of trademark oppositions.
- Decision awaited on the implementation of mediation/settlement drive and placement of Hearing Officers within eight weeks.
- New officials to join offices, finalizing cases for hearing after public notices on the CGPDTM website.

3. Specific Case:
- Clarification provided regarding the filing of opposition post the previous order and its impact on the ongoing litigation between parties.
- The opposition proceedings were allowed on technical grounds of limitation, ensuring the merits of the disputes remain unaffected.
- All matters listed for status reports on 3rd August, 2022, to monitor progress.
- Communication to be sent to the UPSC for recruitment of additional Hearing Officers.

This judgment addresses the issues of lapses in communication within the CGPDTM office, the management of pending opposition cases, and specific clarifications regarding a particular case's opposition filing. It emphasizes the need for clear communication, recruitment of additional staff, and the implementation of a mediation drive for efficient disposal of trademark oppositions.

---