https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243565 Rule 39(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 was treated as a valid supplement to the parent Act because the Act did not prohibit abandonment in the situation covered by the Rule and the time limit could be extended on sufficient cause. At the same time, abandonment of a trade mark application was said to have serious civil consequences and therefore could not be recorded without notice, an opportunity of hearing, and a chance to seek extension of time. The Rules also did not permit abandonment merely for failure to produce evidence; in that situation, the application had to be decided on merits. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Feb 2014 06:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243565 Rule 39(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 was treated as a valid supplement to the parent Act because the Act did not prohibit abandonment in the situation covered by the Rule and the time limit could be extended on sufficient cause. At the same time, abandonment of a trade mark application was said to have serious civil consequences and therefore could not be recorded without notice, an opportunity of hearing, and a chance to seek extension of time. The Rules also did not permit abandonment merely for failure to produce evidence; in that situation, the application had to be decided on merits. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243565