The recent pronouncement by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi underlines the crucial role of advance service in trademark infringement suits, emphasizing the significance of complying with Rule 22 of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules. The court's observation sheds light on the public interest inherent in this procedural requirement and underscores the principle that contested orders are integral to a fair legal process.

Public Interest in Rule 22 of IPD Rules:
The court, in its wisdom, acknowledged the public interest embedded in Rule 22 of the IPD Rules. It emphasized the fundamental premise that a contested legal proceeding is inherently healthy, as it ensures a comprehensive consideration of arguments from both sides. This stance resonates with the idea that an uncontested order may be susceptible to errors, given that it arises from a hearing involving only one party.

Contested Orders and Protection against Errors:
The court's observation underscores the safeguarding effect of contested orders. By their very nature, contested proceedings mitigate the risk of unilateral errors, whether factual or legal. The participation of both parties provides a more robust examination of the issues at hand, thereby reducing the likelihood of an erroneous judgment. This aligns with the core tenets of justice, ensuring a fair and balanced adjudication process.

No Right to Uncontested Orders:
The court's assertion that no party can claim an uncontested order as a matter of right reinforces the principle of fairness in legal proceedings. It establishes that the process of adjudication demands active engagement from all parties involved, and a party cannot expect a one-sided order without due contestation.

Strict Interpretation of Rule 22 of IPD Rules:
In the specific case at hand, the court directed the plaintiff to serve the defendant, underscoring a strict interpretation of Rule 22 of the IPD Rules. This indicates the court's commitment to upholding procedural requirements that contribute to the adversarial nature of legal proceedings.

Exemptions to Advance Service:
While emphasizing the importance of advance service, the court recognized that exceptions could be warranted in certain circumstances. The mention of situations involving substantial stocks of spurious products or a prior association between the parties suggests a pragmatic approach where the strict application of Rule 22 may not be necessary.

The Concluding Note:
The court's elucidation on the significance of advance service in trademark infringement cases, as governed by Rule 22 of the IPD Rules, reaffirms the commitment to a fair and contested legal process. The delicate balance between adherence to procedural requirements and recognition of exceptional circumstances underscores the nuanced nature of trademark litigation.

The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: House Of Diagnostics LLP & Ors Vs House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited
Date of Judgement/Order:05.12.2023
Case No. CS(COMM)869/2023
Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8767
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539