TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner Mr. D.A. Athavale with Mr.A.R. Varma for the Union of India -Respondents JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the Registrars of Trade Marks at Mumbai & Kolkata respectively. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advocate in Kolkata stating that its application had been examined under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Trade Mark Rules, 2002 and that the mark was open to objection for the reasons mentioned therein. For the purpose of this writ petition, the objections are not relevant. The petitioner was requested to submit its response within one month from the date of receipt of the said letter / examination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner's knowledge of the order contained in the said letter / examination report dated 19.09.2011 ; exercised the option for furnishing the objections and applied for a hearing. 8. Rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 reads as under :- "38. Expedited examination, objection to acceptance, hearing :- ..................................... (4) If on consideration of an application for re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a hearing or fails to attend the hearing, the application shall be deemed to have been abandoned." 9. The respondent was bound to communicate any objection or proposal in writing to the applicant. The respondent admittedly did not do so. Placing the notice of the website does not constitute compliance with that Rule 38(4) of the said Rules. The respondents have not indicated anything that oblige....