Mere Proof Of Proper Dispatch Sufficient: Bombay High Court Says Trade Marks Registrar Need Not Prove Actual Delivery Of Renewal Notice

"The Rules when read with Section 25(3) of the Act requires proper dispatch to the address for service and not proof of acknowledgment by the addressee." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 21, 2026, held that the Registrar of Trade Marks is only required to prove the proper dispatch of a mandatory renewal notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, and not its actual delivery to the proprietor.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that the statutory scheme balances competing considerations, obliging the registry to notify the proprietor while placing the ultimate responsibility on the owner to ensure timely renewal.

The petitioners originally secured the trademark "SUNDAY" in 2011, which was valid until May 2019. After failing to renew the mark for over five years, the original proprietor assigned it to a new company in November 2024, prompting belated efforts to restore the registration. When they discovered an online alert indicating the mark was liable to be removed, the petitioners approached the High Court claiming they never received the mandatory O-3/RG-3 renewal notice from the registry.

The primary question before the court was whether the Registrar of Trade Marks complied with the statutory requirement of issuing a renewal notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether the mere unavailability of postal tracking records after several years negates the presumption of due service under the law.

Notice Meant To Facilitate Renewal, Not Preserve Abandoned Marks

Examining the scope of Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, the court noted that the provision empowers the Registrar to remove a mark if renewal conditions are not met within the stipulated period. The bench emphasised that while the Registrar must send a notice before removing a mark, the proprietor bears equal responsibility for monitoring their intellectual property. The judges firmly stated that the statutory mechanism cannot be exploited to cure long-standing negligence.

"The notice under Section 25(3) of the Act is intended to facilitate renewal. It is not intended to indefinitely preserve registrations which the proprietor himself has failed to maintain."

Proof Of Dispatch Triggers Presumption Of Service

The court analysed Rules 18 and 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, alongside Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It observed that the Registrar had produced contemporaneous material, specifically an outward dispatch register, proving the notice was sent via India Post in March 2019 to the registered agent. The bench held that once a document is properly addressed, prepaid, and posted, a statutory presumption of service is triggered, making it legally sufficient without requiring a physical acknowledgment receipt.

Absence Of Online Tracking Records Cannot Rebut Presumption

Addressing the petitioners' heavy reliance on the "Consignment details not found" message displayed on the India Post website in 2025, the court rejected this as grounds to presume non-service. The bench highlighted that the petitioners sought to verify tracking details after a lapse of more than six years. The judges reasoned that neither the postal department nor the Registrar can be expected to preserve online tracking data indefinitely, and such non-availability does not displace the presumption of service.

Burden Shifts To Addressee To Disprove Service

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Madan and Co. vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand, the High Court reiterated that once dispatch is proved, the burden shifts entirely to the addressee to rebut the presumption with cogent evidence. The bench noted the petitioners made only "bald assertions" without filing any affidavit from their registered trademark agent denying receipt. The court also pointed out that out of five notices dispatched to the same agent on that date, renewals were secured for three other clients, severely undermining the petitioners' claims of non-receipt.

Precedents On Non-Compliance Distinguished

The petitioners had relied on previous High Court decisions, including Ipca Laboratories and Cipla Ltd, where trademark removals were quashed for lack of notice. The division bench distinguished these cases, clarifying that in those earlier disputes, there was either no record of the notice being sent or the registry had merely relied on a general public notice. In the present case, the specific dispatch details to the authorised agent were well documented, bringing the matter in line with rulings from the Delhi High Court that actual delivery proof is unnecessary.

Concluding that the Registrar had fully discharged its statutory obligation under Section 25(3) of the Act read with Rule 58, the High Court refused to interfere with the registry's actions. The writ petition was dismissed, with the court noting that allowing such belated renewal claims would severely disrupt the statutory framework governing trademark validity.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026