INDIA: Suo Moto Rectification Not Possible Without Prescribed Notice to Registrant

The Delhi High Court, in an appeal filed by a Registrant, set aside the Registrar’s order allowing suo moto rectification under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The term suo moto refers to action taken by an authority on its own motion, without any formal complaint or request. In this context, it allows the Registrar to independently review the Trade Marks Register and cancel or correct entries that appear to be wrongly made or remaining, but only after issuing the prescribed one-month notice to the affected party.

In Romil Gupta (registrant) v. Registrar of Trade Marks (Registrar) and Landmark Crafts (Landmark), decision dated May 14, 2025, the Court held that the Registrar failed to provide the mandatory one-month notice as required under Rule 100 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 to allow the registrant to show cause why the registration should not be canceled.

The registrant had applied for the trademark in Class 6, claiming prior use supported by an affidavit of use. The application faced objections due to similar marks, including Landmark’s earlier HP mark. Later, the registrant amended the mark on the ground of erroneous representation, and the amended mark proceeded to registration after publication without any opposition from Landmark.

Landmark subsequently initiated rectification proceedings (for invalidation) and also filed a complaint with the Registrar, alleging the following:

• Prior use of its mark HP;
• Fraudulent adoption by the registrant; and
• Impermissible substantial alteration of the mark, invoking Rule 37.

Acting on this complaint, the Registrar issued a notice for suo moto rectification proceedings but gave the registrant only 21 days to respond instead of the required one month. After a hearing, the Registrar revoked the registration and ordered reexamination of the mark.

The registrant appealed. Landmark objected to the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the one-month notice issue had not been raised earlier. The Court, however, ruled in favor of the registrant, holding that the principle of natural justice had been violated. It also held that the amendment did not amount to a substantial alteration and clarified that Landmark’s independent rectification petition would remain unaffected by the Registrar’s suo moto rectification decision.

One should note that Landmark’s grievance was against the feature, HP, which was not altered, and to that extent, one may wonder if Landmark’s complaint was tenable, particularly after it failed to file preregistration opposition after the altered mark was published. One could also debate if the Registrar’s rectification could be termed as suo moto if Landmark’s complaint triggered the proceedings.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association