H.V.G. Ramesh, J:

ORDER

1. Petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore and renew the Trade Mark 421953 as per class 5 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1957 for the period January 1996 till date.

2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 manufacturing animal feed and pharmaceuticals and veterinary products under the brand name VETCARE with logo. It is the case of the petitioner that he has applied for grant of patent on 16.8.1984. As per Section 23, such certificate was subsequently issued during 1995. Thereafter, as per the conditions stipulated, once in seven years petitioner had to apply for renewal and accordingly, he had applied for renewal in the year 1996. But the same has not been renewed. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard the counsel for the respective parties.

4. It is the submission of the respondent that the patent was renewed up to 1998 and thereafter, the petitioner ought to have filed renewal application much prior to the expiry of seven years but, the same has not been done. According to the petitioner, the order of removal of the name from the Register has been communicated to him during 2003 and till then, he was kept in the dark though he has filed renewal application along with the requisite fee during 2002.

5. As per Section 25 r/w Rule 69 of the, before cancellation/removal of the Trade Mark from the Register, prior notice should be issued. There is no material available to show that such a notice has been issued to the petitioner before such removal. Be that as it may, it was for the petitioner as well to make an application for renewal along with payment of the prescribed fee every seven years so as to retain the patent. Further, though the order of rejection has been communicated, to seek review of the order as contemplated would be rather difficult for the petitioner to assail the said order now.

6. In the absence of any such notice being issued to the petitioner, the order of the respondent authority removing the name of the petitioner from the Register stating that there is non-payment of the renewal fee within the prescribed time would be prejudicial to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to enable the petitioner to make renewal application, one more opportunity could be afforded by quashing the impugned order.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.2.2003 -- Annexure H and the endorsement dated 22.9.2003 -- Annexure N are quashed. Petitioner shall apply for renewal before the concerned authority within one month from the date of receipt of this order which shall be considered in accordance with law.