Posting a letter on website is not communication to party: HC

The Bombay High Court has asked the Registrar of Trade Marks to consider afresh an application by Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICAI) urging registration of the trade mark "CMA".
A bench comprising justices Mridula Bhatkar and S F Vajifdar said posting a notice on a website does not amount to communication to the concerned party and ICAI's plea cannot be "abandoned" on the grounds that it had failed to respond to such a notice by Registrar of Trade Marks in the stipulated time.
The judges asked the Registrar of Trade Marks to consider ICAI's application afresh as it was not sent any formal communication.

"Posting a letter on the website is not sufficient. The Registrar of Trade Marks was bound to communicate any objection or proposal in writing to the applicant. The respondent admittedly did not do so. Placing a notice on the website does not constitute compliance with Rule 38(4) of the said rules," the judges said.
The respondent, the Registrar of Trade Marks, has not indicated anything that obliged the petitioner, ICAI, to inspect the website on a daily basis nor did it indicate any rule or practice by which the petitioner is legally bound to take notice of anything that is posted on the respondent's website, the judges said.

ICAI had sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, the Registrar of Trade Marks, to fix a date of hearing in respect of its application for registration of a trade mark 'CMA'.
Rule 38(4) by itself does not require an applicant for registration to inspect the respondent's website. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be imputed with knowledge of the said letter dated September 19, 2011, posted on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks, the court said.
"The mere posting of the letter on the website does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by Rule 38(4). The letter of September 19, 2011, at the highest, can be said to have been communicated to the petitioner only on the date on which the petitioner noticed it on the website, that is, March 13, 2012," the court said.