Notice Under Section 132 Mandatory Before Treating Trademark Application as ‘Abandoned’

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 23.09.2026

Notice Under Section 132 Mandatory Before Treating Trademark Application as ‘Abandoned’

The Delhi High Court has held that a trademark application cannot be treated as “abandoned” under Section 132 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 without first issuing a notice to the applicant requiring it to remedy the alleged default within a specified period.

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed an appeal filed by RITES Limited, formerly Rail India Technical and Economic Service Limited, against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated 25 November 2025, which had treated RITES’ trademark application as abandoned.

The Court held that notice under Section 132 is a “sine qua non” before an application can be declared abandoned and found that the Registrar’s action in the present case was legally untenable because RITES had not been given the statutory opportunity to rectify the alleged default.

RITES Sought Registration of Its Trademark in Class 37

• According to the order, RITES commenced use of the trademark “RITES” on 26 March 2008 in relation to construction, infrastructure consultancy and allied services.
• On 25 May 2023, the company filed Trademark Application No. 5951147 in Class 37 seeking registration of the mark.
• A hearing notice was subsequently issued on 12 September 2025 and the matter came up before the Hearing Officer on 12 November 2025.
• The dispute arose over the filing of additional documents intended to substantiate RITES’ claimed use of the mark from 26 March 2008.

Hearing Officer Informally Indicated Filing of Additional Documents

• RITES contended that during the hearing on 12 November 2025, the Hearing Officer had informally indicated that additional documents should be filed.
• However, according to the High Court’s record, no written direction was passed and no timeline was fixed for filing those documents.
• The very next day, on 13 November 2025, RITES uploaded the additional documents.
• A technical/clerical error, however, resulted in those documents being uploaded against a related trademark application instead of the application presently under consideration.

Registrar Treated Trademark Application as ‘Abandoned’

• On 25 November 2025, the Registrar of Trade Marks treated RITES’ application as abandoned.
• The impugned order proceeded on the basis that RITES had been required to file documents supporting its claim of use from 26 March 2008 within two days, but had failed to do so even after 12 days.
• RITES challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

RITES: Documents Were Filed Next Day, But Against Wrong Application

• Before the High Court, RITES argued that the Registrar had wrongly treated its application as abandoned and had failed to give any cogent reason apart from the alleged non-filing of documents within two days.
• The company maintained that it had, in fact, uploaded the user documents on 13 November 2025—the day immediately following the hearing.
• The problem was that, due to a clerical oversight, the documents were inadvertently uploaded against Application No. 515449 rather than the trademark application involved in the present appeal.

RITES Relied on Its Existing Registrations in Classes 37 and 42

• RITES also argued that the Trade Marks Registry had itself previously recognised its proprietary rights in the mark RITES by granting multiple registrations of the same mark, including registrations in Classes 37 and 42.
• According to the company, those registrations represented statutory recognition of its longstanding use and distinctiveness and supported its expectation of consistent treatment by the Registry.
• The High Court’s order, however, ultimately turned on the procedural safeguards contained in Section 132 rather than finally determining RITES’ substantive entitlement to registration.

Section 132 Is Not an Automatic or Punitive Provision, RITES Argued

• RITES submitted that Section 132 is not intended to operate as a punitive mechanism.
• Under the provision, the Registrar may treat an application as abandoned where, in the Registrar’s opinion, the applicant has defaulted in prosecuting its application.
• But RITES emphasised that this power is accompanied by an express procedural safeguard: before declaring the application abandoned, the Registrar must issue a notice requiring the applicant to remedy the default within the period specified in the notice.
• The applicant may also seek an opportunity of being heard.
• Only when the applicant fails to remedy the default within the specified period can the application be treated as abandoned.
• RITES argued that no such statutory notice had been issued in its case.

Registrar Defended Abandonment Order

• The Registrar of Trade Marks defended the impugned decision.
• It was argued that despite RITES having been granted time to produce documents substantiating its claim of use from 26 March 2008, the company failed to furnish the required material.
• The Registrar therefore maintained that there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the abandonment order.

Delhi HC: Section 132 Was Violated Rather Than Complied With

• The High Court rejected the Registrar’s defence.
• Justice Jyoti Singh observed that there was merit in RITES’ contention that the impugned order had been passed “more in violation than in compliance of Section 132” of the Trade Marks Act.
• The Court explained that although Section 132 empowers the Registrar to treat an application as abandoned where the applicant defaults in prosecution, the provision also mandates issuance of notice to the applicant.
• That notice must require the applicant to remedy the default within a specified period. If desired, the applicant may also seek an opportunity of hearing.

Notice Under Section 132 Is a ‘Sine Qua Non’: Delhi HC

The Court laid down the central proposition in clear terms:

• “Notice under Section 132 to the defaulting applicant is a sine qua non before an action is taken.”
• In other words, the Registrar cannot directly jump from an alleged procedural default to abandonment of the trademark application.
• The statutory notice is a condition precedent to exercise of the abandonment power.
• This finding is significant for trademark prosecution because abandonment can have serious consequences for applicants, particularly where the alleged default is capable of being readily cured.

Technical Glitch Did Not Permit Registrar to Bypass Statutory Notice

• The Court also examined the specific circumstances surrounding RITES’ documents.
• The hearing had taken place on 12 November 2025, and RITES had uploaded the supporting documents on 13 November 2025, albeit against the wrong application.
• The High Court held that even assuming this technical glitch amounted to a default in prosecution, the Registrar was still bound to issue notice to RITES requiring it to remedy the default and correctly upload the documents supporting its claim of use from 26 March 2008.
• The mistake did not eliminate the protection conferred by Section 132.

Abandonment Without Opportunity to Remedy Default Legally Untenable

• The Court noted that no such notice was issued.
• Instead, the application was directly declared abandoned through the order dated 25 November 2025.
• Justice Jyoti Singh therefore held that without notice giving the applicant an opportunity to remedy the default, the abandonment order was legally untenable.
• The judgment consequently reinforces an important distinction between the existence of a procedural default and the legal consequences that may follow from that default.
• Even where a default exists, the Registrar must comply with the procedure prescribed by the Trade Marks Act before imposing the consequence of abandonment.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Registrar’s Order

• The High Court ultimately allowed RITES’ appeal and set aside the Registrar’s order dated 25 November 2025.
• The Registrar was directed to give RITES an opportunity to furnish the requisite supporting documents substantiating its claimed use of the trademark.
• A specific timeline is to be provided for filing those documents, after which the Registrar must proceed with the application in accordance with law.

RITES Wins Procedural Relief, But Trademark Registration Not Yet Granted

• An important qualification is that the Delhi High Court did not order registration of the RITES trademark.
• Nor did it finally adjudicate the merits of the company’s claim regarding use, distinctiveness or registrability of the mark.
• The Court expressly disposed of the appeal with “no expression on the merits of the case.”
• Accordingly, RITES obtained a significant procedural victory: its application can no longer be treated as abandoned on the basis of the impugned order, and it must now be given an opportunity to furnish the required evidence.
• The ultimate question of registration remains for the Trade Marks Registry to determine in accordance with law.

Why the Judgment Matters for Trademark Applicants

• The decision has practical significance for trademark prosecution before the Registry.
• Applicants frequently face procedural issues relating to uploading evidence, filing user affidavits, responding to examination requirements and complying with directions issued during hearings. The RITES ruling makes clear that where the Registrar proposes to invoke Section 132 because of an alleged default in prosecution, the statutory safeguard cannot be bypassed.
• The decision is particularly relevant where the alleged default arises from a clerical error, technical glitch or incorrect uploading of documents.
• The Registrar retains the power to treat an application as abandoned, but only after the applicant has first been notified of the default and given the statutorily contemplated opportunity to cure it.

Key Takeaway

The Delhi High Court has clarified that notice under Section 132 of the Trade Marks Act is mandatory before a trademark application can be treated as abandoned for default in prosecution.

Even where supporting documents were mistakenly uploaded against another application, the Registrar could not directly declare the application abandoned.

The applicant first had to be given notice and an opportunity to remedy the default.

The judgment therefore reinforces the broader principle that procedural mistakes capable of rectification cannot be converted into abandonment without following the safeguards expressly prescribed by the Trade Marks Act.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi