In a case argued by Remfry & Sagar - ‘Pioneer Electronic Corporation vs. M/S. Suse Electronics and Anr.’ - the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) has had the opportunity to adjudicate a critical question of law connected with trademark opposition proceedings - whether or not (erstwhile) Rule 51 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002 (‘Rules’), which permitted a mere one month extension of time for filing evidence, is mandatory in nature.

In a judgment expected to usher in a synchronised approach on this issue across the 5 offices of the Indian Trade Marks Registry, the IPAB stated that upon a harmonious reading of the Trade Marks Act, 2002 and Rules the restriction under Rule 51 is directory and not mandatory; thus, an appellant can seek a further extension of time for filing evidence. pdf Read more... In a case argued by Remfry & Sagar - ‘Pioneer Electronic Corporation vs. M/S. Suse Electronics and Anr.’ - the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) has had the opportunity to adjudicate a critical question of law connected with trademark opposition proceedings - whether or not (erstwhile) Rule 51 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002 (‘Rules’), which permitted a mere one month extension of time for filing evidence, is mandatory in nature.

In a judgment expected to usher in a synchronised approach on this issue across the 5 offices of the Indian Trade Marks Registry, the IPAB stated that upon a harmonious reading of the Trade Marks Act, 2002 and Rules the restriction under Rule 51 is directory and not mandatory; thus, an appellant can seek a further extension of time for filing evidence. pdf Read more...