Trade mark proprietor's rectification request was time-barred where public company registration defeated claims of late awareness.

A complaint for rectification of a company's name by a registered trade mark proprietor had to be read subject to the statutory limitation in the proviso to Section 22(1)(ii), which the Delhi High Court treated as reflecting acquiescence and the legislative intent that action be taken within the prescribed period after coming to notice of registration. Public incorporation placed the company's existence in the public domain, so late awareness could not extend time indefinitely. On the facts, the application was time-barred and the Regional Director's refusal to entertain it was upheld; the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking rectification of the company's name under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 was maintainable within time and whether the proviso inserted by Section 158 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 required the Central Government to examine such an application even after the original twelve-month period.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 22(1)(ii) reflects the legislative intent that a registered proprietor of a trade mark may complain within five years of coming to notice of the company's registration, and the power of the Central Government to act on such complaint must be read into the main provision. The Court held that the limitation cannot be treated as running indefinitely, and that public registration of the company's incorporation put the fact of registration into the public domain. The proviso was treated as incorporating the principle of acquiescence, consistent with Section 33(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the petitioner could not extend time by asserting late awareness of the company's existence.

Conclusion: The application was time-barred on the facts, the Regional Director's refusal to entertain it was upheld, and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the rectification request failed, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint for rectification of a company's name by a registered trade mark proprietor must be read subject to the statutory limitation introduced by the proviso, which embodies acquiescence and cannot be avoided by claiming ignorance of a company's publicly registered incorporation.

---