P.D.Jose v. The Registrar Trade Mark Registry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No.19761 of 2015 (U) PETITIONER:

------------------- P.D.JOSE,MANAGING PARTNER, EDAPANA MODERN RICE MILL, EAST OKKAL,KALADY-683550.

BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT:

---------------------- THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, TRADE MARK REGISTRY,IP INDIA BUILDINGS, CHENNAI-600001.

R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH,ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

WP(C).No.19761 of 2015 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------ EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE DETAIL OF THE TRADE MARK KITCHEN SPECIAL.

EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL WITH AFFIDAVIT AND ENCLOSURES.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

W.P(C). No.19761 of 2015 Dated this the 01st day of July, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various kitchen products in Kerala. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he had made Ext.P2 application for renewal of Trade Mark Registration, with an affidavit explaining the delay, before the respondent, it has not yet been considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2.

2. In such circumstances, if Ext.P2 is received in original in the office of the respondent and if the required fee has been paid, then the same shall be considered in accordance with law, within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp