https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270967 Where the registry record showed that opposition time had been extended, registration made before expiry of that extended period was contrary to Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and had to be rectified. Section 125 was held to bar only party-initiated rectification applications in the context of an infringement suit; it did not restrict the Registrar's independent suo motu power under Section 57(4) to correct the register. The Court treated the procedural extension as effective on the material before it and confirmed that preserving the integrity of the register justified suo motu action despite parallel infringement proceedings. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:52:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270967 Where the registry record showed that opposition time had been extended, registration made before expiry of that extended period was contrary to Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and had to be rectified. Section 125 was held to bar only party-initiated rectification applications in the context of an infringement suit; it did not restrict the Registrar's independent suo motu power under Section 57(4) to correct the register. The Court treated the procedural extension as effective on the material before it and confirmed that preserving the integrity of the register justified suo motu action despite parallel infringement proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270967