An order that removes a trademark from the register should at minimum identify the right trademark. Order No. 156/2013 cited two application numbers as being in Class 29. Neither is. One belongs to a Danish company with no connection to the dispute — and that is the one the order directed be removed.
The numbers don’t match
The order refers to TM no. 1340549 and TM no. 1346594 in Class 29. Neither exists in that class.
On checking the register:
- TM no. 1340549 is “MASTECH” in Class 9, filed by Precision Mastech Enterprises Co.
- TM no. 1346594 is a multi-class mark, “MASCOT (DEVICE OF BEAR)” in Classes 9, 24 and 25, filed by Mascot International A/S.
Despite that, the IPAB ordered removal of TM no. 1346594 from the register — a mark belonging to a proprietor with no involvement in the proceedings before it.
The underlying dispute
The case concerned two brothers disputing rights to the trademark “PIP” (TM no. 554681, Class 29), originally registered to a partnership that included their late father. At issue was whether one brother had been validly expelled in 2001, and whether the assignments that followed were legitimate.
That is a fact-heavy dispute turning on documents — and the order gives little sign the documents were examined.
What wasn’t verified
The order rests on contentions it does not appear to have tested. An expulsion letter dated 15 February 2001 is central to the whole matter, yet the contentions around it seem to have been accepted without supporting documentation being sought, and without the logical progression of events being examined.
There is also a related complication passed over: two applications exist, one filed by each brother for similar marks, and those pending opposition matters received inadequate attention in an order that purports to resolve the family’s competing rights.
Why this is serious
Getting an application number wrong in a judgment is ordinarily a clerical matter, correctable on application. This is not that.
The order directs the removal of a mark from the register, and the mark it identifies belongs to someone who was never a party. If executed as written, an unrelated proprietor loses a registration in three classes without notice, hearing, or any connection to the dispute — and would discover it only on finding the registration gone.
The confusion also raises the question of which mark was actually intended to be removed. An order whose operative direction cannot be reliably identified is difficult to implement and difficult to appeal, because the affected party cannot tell from the face of it whether they are affected.
The wider point
Tribunals carry heavy dockets and errors happen. But an order cancelling property rights sits at the far end of the spectrum where verification matters most — the whole basis of a public register is that it accurately records who owns what, and an erroneous removal damages the register’s reliability well beyond the parties.
The remedy in a case like this is prompt: the affected proprietor should seek rectification or recall of the order, and the register should be checked before any removal is given effect.
A note on the forum. The IPAB was abolished in 2021, and its jurisdiction over rectification and cancellation now sits with the Registrar and the High Courts, with the Delhi High Court operating a dedicated Intellectual Property Division. Whether that has improved the standard of scrutiny is a separate question, but the volume of IP matters now being handled by courts with dedicated IP benches makes an error of this kind less likely to pass unnoticed.
The takeaways
- The cited numbers were in the wrong class — and identified unrelated marks.
- An uninvolved proprietor’s mark was ordered removed.
- Central contentions went unverified, including a disputed expulsion letter.
- Check the register before executing a removal order — and seek recall if wrongly named.
Frequently asked questions
What was wrong with IPAB Order No. 156/2013? It cited two application numbers as being in Class 29 when neither was, and directed removal of a mark belonging to a company unconnected with the dispute.
What should a proprietor do if their mark is wrongly ordered removed? Seek recall or rectification of the order promptly, and ensure the register is checked before the removal is given effect.
Who hears rectification matters now? The Registrar and the High Courts — the IPAB was abolished in 2021, with the Delhi High Court operating a dedicated Intellectual Property Division.
Why does an erroneous removal matter beyond the parties? Because a public register’s value depends on accurately recording ownership; a wrongful removal undermines the reliability everyone else relies on.
Useful official resources
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Trade Marks Registry — IP India