Delhi High Court Quashes Trademark Registry’s “Single-Line Order” as Violation of Natural Justice

 

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order issued by the Trademark Registry in which the Examiner dismissed an application for amendment of a counter-statement with merely a single line, without providing reasons or affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that such a summary order, passed hurriedly and without due process, is contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice.

The matter concerned an appeal by ABC Mechanicals challenging the Examiner’s refusal to allow an amendment in a rectification proceeding. ABC Mechanicals had filed a trademark application for the mark “ABC” for electric fans and parts, and an opposition had been filed by ABC Trade Agencies. As ABC Trade Agencies did not lead evidence, the Registrar proceeded to grant registration, and later a rectification petition was filed to remove the mark from the register. During those proceedings, ABC Mechanicals sought to file additional documents by way of amendment to their counter-statement. The Examiner dismissed that application abruptly, through a single-sentence order, without discussing the party’s submissions or giving any hearing.

In determining the appeal, the High Court emphasized that administrative or quasi-judicial decisions must conform to the doctrine of audi alteram partem, meaning parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Court observed that non-speaking, cryptic or unreasoned orders, especially those passed without hearing the party, cannot stand. It noted that the impugned “single-line” decision failed to reflect any consideration of the submissions or the record, and did not disclose the reasoning for refusal. Such an approach deprives the affected party of the right to understand and challenge the basis of the decision, rendering it unsustainable in law.

Justice Tejas Karia held that due process requires that all parties be given a meaningful opportunity to present their arguments and evidence, and thereafter a reasoned order must be passed. In light of this, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Trademark Registry for fresh consideration. The Registry was directed to afford ABC Mechanicals a proper hearing, consider the amendment application in light of all relevant materials on record, and pass a speaking order reflecting that deliberation.

This decision affirms the principle that decisions in trademark proceedings, or any adjudicatory process, must adhere to basic tenets of natural justice. The Court made clear that summary disposal without hearing or reasoning is impermissible, and that registrars and examiners must ensure procedural fairness in the exercise of their powers.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community