ACE Foods Appeals Abandonment: Testing Procedural Lapses vs Substantive Rights in Trademark Law

March 11, 2026

For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Introduction

This case (CMA(TM) No. 22 of 2025) concerns an appeal filed by ACE Foods Private Limited under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the High Court of Madras, challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks’ order dated 4 July 2025. The Registrar had dismissed the company’s interlocutory petition and declared its trademark application abandoned. The matter raises an important question: can procedural lapses, especially during extraordinary situations such as the COVID‑19 pandemic, extinguish substantive rights under trademark law?

Facts of the Case

ACE Foods, a company engaged in the manufacture of packaged snacks under the brand “MODERN KITCHENS’ Delite in Every Bite”, filed application No. 4015733 in Class 35 on 3 December 2018, claiming use since 1984. The application was published in the Trademark Journal on 2 September 2019. Shortly thereafter, on 12 December 2019, Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. filed an opposition.

The appellant filed its counter-statement on 7 February 2020. On 6 April 2020, the opponent submitted evidence in support of its opposition. On 1 June 2020, ACE Foods filed its evidence affidavit. However, due to the pandemic, the affidavit was neither signed nor attested. The appellant included an undertaking to file a rectified version when directed.

On 31 July 2020, the opponent filed its reply affidavit, thereby completing the pleadings. The matter then remained dormant for several years. In 2022, the original authorized signatory of ACE Foods, Mr. Annappa Pai, passed away. On 8 October 2024, ACE Foods filed an interlocutory application with a properly signed and attested affidavit by a new representative, Mr. P. Sudheendra Kamath.

On 4 July 2025, the Registrar dismissed the interlocutory petition and declared the application abandoned. The Registrar reasoned that the affidavit filed in 2020 was invalid and that the rectified affidavit in 2024 was beyond the limitation period. The Registrar relied on the rule that failure to file evidence properly within time results in deemed abandonment.

Argument in Favour

ACE Foods argued that the affidavit filed on 1 June 2020 was within the prescribed time and that the later filing in 2024 was merely a rectification of the earlier affidavit. They contended that they had been awaiting directions from the Registrar to rectify the affidavit, which never came.

The appellant emphasized that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights. They had demonstrated intent to prosecute the application by filing evidence during the pandemic, even if it was defective in form. The rectified affidavit was only a formal correction of the timely filing. They also pointed out that the opponent had already replied to the 2020 affidavit, which showed that no prejudice was caused by accepting the rectified version.

Argument Against

The respondents argued that the Act and Rules prescribe strict timelines that must be adhered to. They maintained that the Registrar had no discretion to condone delays beyond the limitation period. The rectified affidavit filed in 2024 was more than two years late, well beyond the Supreme Court’s pandemic-related extension, which ended on 30 May 2022.

They contended that the rules were consistent with the Act and necessary to ensure procedural discipline. Without consequences for non-compliance, the rules would be ineffective. Therefore, the Registrar was correct in declaring the application abandoned.

Court’s Decision

The High Court set aside the Registrar’s order and directed that the application proceed on merits.

The Court held that the appellant had clearly intended to prosecute the application, as evidenced by the 2020 filing during the pandemic. The affidavit filed in 2024 was only a rectified version of the earlier filing and not a fresh submission. The opponent had already replied to the 2020 affidavit, meaning no prejudice was caused by taking the rectified affidavit on record.

The Court also noted that the Registrar contributed to the delay by failing to issue directions to rectify the defect. Importantly, the Court concluded that procedural rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to defeat substantive rights. The affidavit filed in 2024 was treated as a rectified version of the 2020 filing, and the application was ordered to proceed on merits.

Conclusion

The decision in ACE Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks underscores the principle that procedural rules must not override substantive rights. The Court recognized that the appellant had demonstrated intent to prosecute the application and that the rectified affidavit was merely a formal correction of the timely 2020 filing.

This judgment strengthens the position that procedural lapses, especially during extraordinary circumstances like the pandemic, should not defeat substantive rights. It highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that trademark law remains fair, balancing strict compliance with equitable considerations. For businesses, the case serves as a reminder to diligently pursue trademark applications while also affirming that courts will protect genuine efforts from being lost to procedural rigidity.