Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21477 (DEL)

M/S RALSON (INDIA) LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

W.C.(C)-IPD/2/2026 · 2026-10-07

Tejas Karia

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011090752025 + W.P.(C)-IPD 2/2026 & CM 23/2026 M/S RALSON (INDIA) LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Deeksha Gulati, Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla and Mr. S Bhatia, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Rishav Raj and Ms. Nikita Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 07.10.2026 1. This Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for issue of Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents to accept renewal fees for trade mark registration under no. 499083 in Class 1 and issue renewal certificate as no notice under Rule 66 and 67 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 and Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) was ever issued. Accordingly, the Petitioner has sought the following prayers:- “a). To allow filing of the Form TM-P in respect of registration No. 499083 in class 1 and renew the trade mark from 2025 or 2035 as the case may be. 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 09/10/2026 at 13:35:42 b). To take on record the Form TM-P so sought to be filed by Petitioner and allow the request and issue renewal Certificate to the Petitioner in respect of registration No. 499083 in class 1.” 2. Vide order dated 21.01.2026, notice was issued in this Petition and Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC had sought time to file reply. 3. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that notice in Form O-(3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 58 of the Rules is not traceable. Accordingly, Ms. Nidhi Raman, on instructions, submits that the Petitioner may file a fresh application for renewal of registration along with the requisite fees and the Trade Marks Registry shall process the same in accordance with law. 4. Therefore, it is directed that if the Petitioner makes a fresh application, the same shall be considered by the Trade Marks Registry within a period of four weeks. If the Petitioner has already paid the fees, the same shall be adjusted by the Trade Marks Registry against the fresh application to be filed by the Petitioner. 5. In view of the above directions, the Petition and the pending Application stand disposed of. TEJAS KARIA, J OCTOBER 7, 2026/ss 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 09/10/2026 at 13:35:42