https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235168 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. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235168 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235168