Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming the validity of serving documents to relevant parties through email. However, this mode of document service is permissible only when the concerned party has explicitly furnished an email address for this purpose.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said that an email address provided by a trademark applicant in their application or by an opponent in their notice of opposition, under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, shall be deemed sufficient as an address for document service in accordance with Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999.

The court further expounded that the inclusion of an email address in a trademark application or a notice of opposition effectively signifies the party's consent to receive official communications via email. "I do not think that there can be any manner of doubt that service of documents relating to the application or the notice of opposition at the said e-mail ID would suffice as service within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act”, the court said.

Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act stipulates that the address for service provided in the application or notice of opposition shall be considered the official address of the applicant or opponent. It also outlines that documents may be served by physical delivery or postal dispatch to this address.

Court asserted that the phrase "leaving them at" in Section 143 should be broadly construed to encompass email service when an email address has been provided in the application or notice of opposition. Furthermore, it emphasized that if a party has supplied an email address, they cannot subsequently contest that documents sent via email were not duly served within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act.

Court clarified that the Registry of Trade Marks is authorized to employ email as a means of document service solely in cases where the party being served has disclosed an email address in the application or notice of opposition. In situations where such an email address is absent, sending documents by email, even if sent to the party's email address, will not constitute legal service under Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act.

The case in question pertained to an appeal challenging an order issued by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks concerning an objection to an application for the registration of the mark 'Armex'. The opposition plea was treated as abandoned because they failed to respond with supporting evidence within the stipulated time, which was calculated from the date of email service by the Registry.

The appellant, opposing the registration, contended that they had not received any documents from the registry because the authority had only used email for communication.

The C=court noted that the appellant had not provided an email address for document service in their notice of opposition, leading to the conclusion that the documents were not properly served by the Registry.

Court emphasized that it is entirely the prerogative of the applicant or opponent to choose the address to which official communications from the Registry of Trade Marks should be directed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that there is no legal obligation to provide an email address for service, especially considering various reasons that may prevent its provision, such as difficulties in access or irregular usage.

Consequently, court allowed the appeal and overturned the Registry's earlier order.

Case Title: M/S Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading As M/S Armex Auto Industries