Terming it a ‘classic case of official indifference’, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has asked the following “very relevant” general questions from Tardemark Registry: –
1) How even before the order was passed, the online status treated the mark as abandoned;
2) Why none of the letters written by the appellant received a reply;
3) Why even after the opponents had indicate their opposition was withdrawn no communication was sent regarding order of abandonment;
4) Why was the order of abandonment passed by an Examiner and not “the Registrar” and
5) If there is documentary proof that the Notice of Opposition was communicated to the appellant or the counsel, the same shall be furnished.
The appellant filed for the trademark in 1992. The trademark was opposed in 2001. The trademark was ordered abandoned in 2009.
IPAB observed “The narration of events in this case will bring light to the lack of transparency, the failure on the part of the Trade Mark Registry to respond to letters from the counsel and absence of internal communication within the Registry itself regarding the developments in the registration proceedings; all leading to miscarriage of justice.”