Trademark registry can send documents via email if litigant has furnished email id: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed the Trademarks Registry can serve documents to a party by email, although such service of documents may only be done if the party concerned has provided an email ID as an “address” for such a purpose. [M/S Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Suri Trading As M/S Armex Auto Industries].Pertinently, the Court held that an email ID provided by a trademark applicant in an application or an opponent in the notice of opposition under the Trade Marks Act would suffice as an address for the service of documents under Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. .Justice C Hari Shankar further opined that if an email ID is provided in a trademark application or notice of opposition, the applicant or opponent clearly agrees to receiving communications through the 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,” Justice Shankar said..Section 143 provides that the address for service in the application or notice of opposition shall be deemed to be the address of the applicant or opponent. It further adds that all documents “may be served by leaving them at or sending them by post” to the address for service of the applicant or opponent..The Court said the words “leaving them at” in Section 143 have to be read expansively enough to cover service by email when an email ID is provided in the application or notice of opposition.The Court further said that if the applicant or the opponent has provided the email ID, they cannot later argue that documents sent through email were not served within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act.."The Registry of Trade Marks is at liberty to effect service of documents by e-mail only where the party being served has provided an e-mail ID in the application or notice of opposition. Where no such e-mail ID is provided, sending of the documents by e-mail, even if it is in fact sent to the e-mail ID of the party concerned, would not constitute service of documents within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act," the Court concluded. .The Court was hearing an appeal challenging an order passed by Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks on a plea opposing an application for the registration of the mark ‘Armex’. .The opposition plea was treated as abandoned on the ground that the opponents had failed to respond with supporting evidence within the stipulated time, which was calculated from the date of service of documents by email by the Registry. .The opponent (appellant), however, asserted that it was not served any documents by the Registry since the authority had only emailed them. The Court was also told that the appellant had not provided any email ID for such a service of the documents. .Since no email ID had been provided by the appellant in its notice of opposition, the Court concluded that the documents were not properly served by the Registry. “The reason is that it is entirely up to the applicant, or the opponent, to choose the address at which he desires official communications, from the Registry of Trade Marks, to be addressed to him,” the Court added..The Court further emphasised that there was no statutory or legal compulsion to provide an email ID for service, particularly since there may be several reasons for not providing an email ID.“The email may be difficult to access or may not be regularly accessed by the party concerned. If the rules were to require any email ID to be provided by the party, then, no doubt, the party would be mandatorily required to do so,” it explained..The Court proceeded to allow the appeal and set aside the Registry's order. Advocates Zeba Tarannum Khan and Sheril Bhatia represented the appellant.Central Government Standing Counsel Harish Vaidyanathan with Advocates Srish Kumar Mishra, Alexander Mathai Paikaday, M Sriram and Krishnan V represented the official respondent..[Read Judgment]