https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239416 The court granted the petitioner's request to quash the order removing their trade mark "CIPLA" from the register and ordered its restoration. The court emphasized the necessity of prior notice before removal, citing statutory provisions and a previous Delhi High Court judgment. It held that removal without following the mandatory procedure was invalid. The court rejected the argument that a public notice sufficed, emphasizing the requirement for specific notice to the registered proprietor. The court directed restoration and renewal of the trade mark within two weeks, noting the absence of competing claims. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239416 The court granted the petitioner's request to quash the order removing their trade mark "CIPLA" from the register and ordered its restoration. The court emphasized the necessity of prior notice before removal, citing statutory provisions and a previous Delhi High Court judgment. It held that removal without following the mandatory procedure was invalid. The court rejected the argument that a public notice sufficed, emphasizing the requirement for specific notice to the registered proprietor. The court directed restoration and renewal of the trade mark within two weeks, noting the absence of competing claims. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239416