In a recent decision^[1], in Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd. and Anr.^[2], the Delhi High Court (‘Court’) corrected certain inadvertent errors which had crept into its earlier Order^[3] of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd. and Anr.^[4] (‘Earlier Order’), and clarified, inter alia, that the obligation to serve the counter statement in a trademark opposition proceeding is on the Registrar of Trademarks (‘Registrar’) and not on the applicant in such proceedings.

The above decision was in the context of a review petition filed by Dabur India Ltd. against the Earlier Order where the Court held the following:

i.    time period for filing evidence in an opposition proceeding is non-extendible and the Registrar has no discretion to grant an extension; and

ii.   the applicant in an opposition proceeding is responsible for serving the counter statement and not the Registrar.

Further, the Court in the Earlier Order had also used the term ‘counter statement’ instead of ‘evidence’ at several places, which the Court rectified. The Court further clarified that the evidence affidavits need to be directly served by the parties concerned. However, the counter statement must be served on the other side by the Registrar and not the applicant.

[1] Order dated October 22, 2024.

[2] Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd. and Anr. [C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM)-146/2022, I.As. 40348-49/2024, REVIEW PET. 347/2024].

[3] Order dated February 9, 2024.

[4] Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd. and Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 146/2022].