Procedure prescribed in Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 67 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 is mandatory.
- Union of India Vs. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 (54) PTC 165 (Del) (DB) [Summary]
- CIPLA Limited Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhawan and Union of India through Ministry of Commerce Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, 2013 (56) PTC 217 Bom
Consent given to one party does not mean that the proprietor has given consent to all /even if consent has been given to one, the others can be restricted.
- Castrol Ltd. Vs. A.K. Mehta, 1997 PTC (17)(DB) 408
The mere posting of the examination report on the website of Trade Mark office does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by rule 38(4) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002.
- Institute of Cost Accountants of India vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr., W.P. No. 2088 of 2012 [Summary]