C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 17/2026 Page 1 of 2 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010118492026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 17/2026 & I.A. 8243/2026, I.A. 8245/2026 THE HONEST REVEIRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Anuj Dhar, Mr. Samanyu Bhatnagar and Mr. Kaulik Mitra, Advocates. versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, GP with Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi and Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Rakesh Raushan, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 05.08.2026 As recorded in order dated 11.05.2026, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Registrar of Trade Marks had sought some time to take instructions as to whether the counter statement of respondent No.2 (trade mark applicant) was indeed served upon the appellant (opposing party), as is statutorily required. 2. Mr. Rohan Jaitley, learned CGSC appearing for respondent No.1 submits that he has instructions to state that the requirement of serving the counter statement upon the opponent in terms of section 21(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 44 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 was fulfilled however owing to a technical glitch, service could not be effected upon the appellant herein. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 10:52:17 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 17/2026 Page 2 of 2 3. In view of what has been stated by the learned CGSC, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter be remanded back to the learned Registrar for fresh consideration, with the further direction that the limitation period of 02 months as prescribed under Rule 44 of the Trade Marks Rules would start running from the date on which the counter statement is served upon the appellant. 4. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant are supported by a plain reading of section 21(3) of the Trade Marks Act read with Rule 44 of the Trade Marks Rules. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed-of, remanding the matter back for consideration to respondent No.1 in accordance with section 21(3) of the Trade Marks Act read with Rule 44 of the Trade Marks Rules. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. 7. It is clarified that the limitation period prescribed under Rule 44 of the Trade Marks Rules shall start running from the date when the counter statement is served upon the opponent/appellant herein. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J AUGUST 5, 2026/ak This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 10:52:17