Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)

E-mail login                       Password
     

Free Email Sign Up

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Arbitration
 Aviation Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Miscellaneous
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscription
Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.

Name
Email



Copyright Registration

To Copyright Your Books, Videos, Songs, Scripts etc
Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com
Top Law Colleges

Law Updates:

# Income-Tax
# Family law
# Company Law
# Constitutional Law
# Partnership firms
# Immigration Law
# Cyber Law
# Lok Adalat, legal Aid & PIL
# Forms
# Trademarks
# Woman issues
# Medico Legal
# Consumer laws
# Criminal laws
# Supreme Court Judgments


Published : June 02, 2011 | Author : lawyerbps
Category : Intellectual Property | Total Views : 13319 | Rating :

  
lawyerbps
PARAMJEET SINGH BERWAL Lawyer
 

Section 25 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999

The present paper deals with the nature of the sending of notice by the Registrar under section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 enacted by the Parliament of India.

The section 25 i.e. Duration, Renewal, Removal and Restoration of Registration falls in the periphery of the Chapter-III titled “Procedure for and Duration of Registration”.

The question for consideration before the author pertains to the proposition that what would be the implications if the Registrar fails to send notice to the concerned proprietor of the registered trademark under section 25 (3) in relation to the renewal of the registered trademark? Sub-section 2 of the section 25 of the Trade Marks Act clearly indicates that protection of the trademark, being for a period of 10 years, may be renewed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the section. The phrase ‘in accordance with the provisions of this section’ gives, rather allocates, a conditional nature to the aspect of renewal of trademark in the sense that a trademark may be renewed if the provisions of the section 25 are followed in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention here that the interpretation of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is strictly in accordance with the words used/mentioned therein.

If a registered proprietor of a trademark files an application in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period, subject to payment of the prescribed fee to the Registrar, the Registrar shall renew the registration of the trademark. The renewed registration of the trademark shall be for the period of 10 years from the date of expiration of the original registration or of the last renewal of the registration (section 25(2)). But what would be the scenario if the registered proprietor, whose tenure of trademark protection is going to get over? Subsection 3 of section 25 of The Trade Marks Act 1999, provides for such a situation. It provides that at the prescribed time before the expiration of the last registration of a trademark the Registrar shall send a notice in the prescribed manner to the registered proprietor of the date of expiration and the conditions as to the payment of fees and otherwise upon which a renewal of registration may be obtained. It is worthy to take into account the language of the subsection 3 of section 25 here. It clearly puts forth that there are certain conditions mandatory in nature keeping in mind the object of the Trade Marks Act 1999, upon which a renewal of registration may be obtained by the registered proprietor of that trademark. The said conditions amounting to a mandatory provisions are as follows-

· Requirement on the part of the Registrar to send a notice in prescribed manner to the registered proprietor of the date of the expiration and the conditions as to payment of fees and otherwise. It is important to note that as per section 25(2) renewal can only be obtained if the prescribed fee is paid, the notice of which has to be given to the registered proprietor buy the Registrar. Rule 64 of the Chapter-II titled ‘Renewal of Registration and Restoration’ mentions about the ‘notice before removal of trademark from register’. It provides that at a date not less than one month and not more than three months before the expiration of the last registration of a trademark, if no application in form TM-12 for the renewal of the registration together with the prescribed fee has been received, the Registrar shall notify the registered proprietor or proprietors and each registered user, if any, in writing in form O-3 of the approaching expiration at the address of their respective principal places of business in India as entered in register or where such registered proprietor or registered user has no principal place of business in India, at his address for service in India entered in the Register. If we analyse the form O-3 as provided in schedule-3 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, titled ‘Certificate of Registration of Trademarks’, the particulars of the same are as below-

1) compliance of sending notice under section 25(3)
2) time of expiration
3) intimating about the opportunity or option to renew the registered trademark for a further period of 10 years
4) the indication that upon sending the notice in the form O-3 and the receipt of the same by the registered proprietor, the Registrar expects receipt of an application on the enclosed form T-12 accompanied by the prescribed fee.
5) mentioning the date by which upon the receipt of the form O-3 (as it logically implied, the application in form TM-12 and the prescribed fee can be received by the Trademark Registry for considering renewal of the Trademark)

The provisions of the section 25 (3) also makes it clear that the Registrar shall not remove the trademark from the register if the application is made in the form TM-12, the notice in relation to which has to be given by the Registrar as per Rule 64(1). So the above discussion makes it lucid that sending of notice by the Registrar under section 25(3) is a mandatory requirement and not following the same would not result in the implications detrimental to the interest of the registered proprietor of the trademark. If this is allowed to be done, it would be against the basic jurisprudence behind the concept of Trademarks as well as aforementioned relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999 giving an expression to the protection of consumers and ensuring quality of products and services to them by associating the fruits of the intellect with their source/producers. If the requirement of sending notice to the registered proprietor of the trademark is made directory or not given mandatory characteristic, it would often lead to consequences of bringing a trademark in ‘public domain’ which would not be in the interest of consumers. It is because it takes time, sincere efforts on the part of the producer to maintain consistency in the quality of products and services that he provides to the consumers. If that is allowed to be brought out of the domain of protection, the said quality and consistency would not yield desired fruits for the producers as they would stand to lose their goodwill and thus, suffer economically and the consumers would have the trademark associated with a quality not attached with the prior benchmark of the same.

In case the Registrar fails to send notice to the proprietor of the registered trademark in relation to expiration and renewal of the trademark that would be expired if the conditions mentioned in the statute and conveyed in terms of notice to the proprietor by the Registrar, then the trademark should be allowed to be renewed as and when the proprietor of the trademark fulfils all the conditions that are pre-requisites of the renewal of trademark protection, as soon as he comes to know of that but within the period stipulated in section 25. It is pertinent to mention here that the period within which the conditions of renewal have to be fulfilled by the proprietor of the registered trademark should start from the date when it comes to the knowledge of the proprietor that his trademark is no more in the periphery of Intellectual Property Right Protection. Here the time lost due to not conveying of the notice by the Registrar to the proprietor of the registered trademark regarding the renewal of the said trademark should be excluded. The purpose of the trademark protection is to protect such marks that are beneficial to the consumers in the way that the consumers can identify the product with its producer through the trademark. If the omission to send a mandatory notice to the proprietor of the registered trademark on the part of the Registrar is allowed to be taken as an excuse to remove the name of the registered trademark from the register would defeat the very purpose of the Trade Marks Act, overlooking its main objective.

So, in the light of the aforementioned, in the opinion of the author, the requirement imposed on the Registrar to send a notice to registered proprietor in a prescribed manner of the date of expiration and the conditions as to payment of fees and otherwise upon which a renewal of registration may be obtained by the proprietor or any other person mentioned in the statue, amounts to be mandatory in nature. The said requirement should be complied with by the Registrar and, if, it is somehow not complied with for the reason beyond the control of the registered proprietor, then the trademark should not be removed from the register without affording an opportunity to the registered proprietor after the situation come to his knowledge. The registered proprietor if pays the prescribed fee and fulfils other conditions for renewal of the trademark after it has finally come to his notice; the trademark ought to be renewed again for protection for a period of ten years from the date of expiration of the original registration or of the last renewal of registration of the trademark, as the case may be.

The basic principle behind this approach is that the scheme of section 25 and other relevant sections and rules of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is that the Registrar is under a mandatory duty to provide the proprietor of the registered trademark with a sufficient notice, the particulars of which have been provided in the act itself in the rules and forms, specifying the prescribed fees to be paid by the registered proprietor and the other conditions to be fulfilled by the registered proprietor. It is upon the receipt of this notice, that the proprietor is supposed to get knowledge of the impending removal of his registered trademark from the register, if he does not satisfy the conditions specified in the notice. Thus, that notice is undoubtedly a pre-requisite to hold the proprietor of the registered trademark responsible for non-compliance of all the conditions (mentioned in that notice only and required by law to be forwarded to proprietor) in relation to what he has to do in order to renew the trademark. It is subsequent to non-compliance of those conditions mentioned in notice that the Registrar may ponder over removing or may remove the trademark from the register. So if the basic and the mandatory requirement of sending the notice to registered proprietor is not fulfilled by the Registrar, there arises no question of making the registered proprietor of the trademark responsible for non-compliance and thus, the removal of the trademark from the registered by the Registrar would be without any legal sanctity and basis. This defect can be only cured by letting the registered proprietor know of the pending renewal of the trademark and affording him an opportunity to abide by the conditions of the renewal that were supposed to be communicated to him by the Registrar through a mandatory notice but were not sent to him for reasons beyond his control.

The aforementioned analysis is based on the basic jurisprudence behind the concept of Intellectual Property Rights protection through trademarks, and the lucid language of the statute namely, the Trade Mark Protection Act, 1999.

Authors contact info - articles The  author can be reached at: lawyerbps@legalserviceindia.com




1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor
Excellent    

Most viewed articles in Intellectual Property category
Advertising
Bajaj Auto Limited
Copyright Societies
Plagiarism
Infringement of trademark and what constitutes honest practice in relation to trade and bussiness
Trademark Infringement and Remedies
Trade Mark Law in India & Its Violation
Passing off under trademark
Section 25 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Patenting of Micro-Organisms in India: An Overview
Originality Under Copyright Law-Is There Any Definite Standard?
Indian Copyright Software
Product Patent & Exclusive Marketing Rights
Competition Law vis-a-vis IPR rights
Author's moral Right
Registration & filing of Copyrights in India
Most recent articles in Intellectual Property category
Semi conductor integrated circuit lay out design protection
Patent for technological companies
International Commercial Arbitration
Trademark infringement and passing off Indian pharmaceutical industry
Protecting Tradition And Culture In India Development of A Sui Generis System
De Jure Mobile Applications under the IP Law
Sports and IPR
Protecting Tradition and Culture in India: Development of A Sui Generis System
The Effectiveness of the Remedies for Copyright Infringement
National IPR Policy 2016
Trademark Law in Music and Film Industry
Trademark Infringement and Passing off in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
Design Your Sound Make Your Sound A Mark
Brand Protection Agency Racket in India?
WHY a Registered Trademark in INDIA
Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2015 changes on the face of it. (Part I)

Article Comments

Posted by Sreekumaran Nair on April 14, 2015
Sir, we are a company registered with tradfemark and patents rights. But we are not manufacturing any items but indulging in trading raw materials. But we have a tax case stating that any thing traded by a registered TM comapnyy has to pay higher tax rate. Can you tell us the actual facts inviting the name brand for any items.

Posted by K N JHA on July 03, 2014
How can I search a name for the registration of my new business unit which doesn't match with any registered unit in India.

Post Your Comments
Name

Email

Your comments

Note : Your email address is only visible to admin, other members / users cannot see it.

You can use following FXCodes


BOLD : [b]
Italic : [i]

[b] Legal Services India [/b] is a [i]nice website[/i].
[url= http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/ ]click here to visit.[/url]

Legal Services India is a nice website.
Click here to visit

 

Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after approval.



Welcome!
Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
this article talks about constitution and the problem of bad implementation of law in india...

Statistics
» Total Articles
1373
» Total Authors
3979
» Total Views
15443647
» Total categories
40

Law Forum


Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers

TOP

India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2016
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3