https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375343 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. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375343 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375343