The IPAA challenged the initial IPTO order that no amendments could be made before the Delhi high court. The IPAA mentioned that it had a pending representation with the CG. The court therefore took the easy way out and suggested that the CG hear the parties and pass an order on their representation.
Although this was prompted by the court, there there is no reason why such a judicial process cannot be institutionalised for future decision making by the IPTO. The CGPDTM Order specified that 'substantial alteration' would include amendment of the trademark, details of the proprietor, specification of goods/ services, etc. However, requests in the amendment of proprietorship due to a valid assignment, or clerical errors in the address of the applicant, etc would be allowed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
