1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 343 OF 2010 Intel Corporation ).. Petitioner versus Union of India and others ).. Respondents Mr. Amit Jamsandekar i/b Gajria & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Sethna a/w Mr. Mandar Goswami for Union of India. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar a/w Krishnn Sen and Carls D’Souza i/b Bharucha & Partners for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE 2010 P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have taken up the Writ Petition for final hearing. 2. This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner Company has challenged the decision of Respondent No.2 Registrar of Trade Marks for renewing trade mark bearing 354552 of Respondent No.6-Intel Exports Corporation, after it was removed from the register of trade marks. 2 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the renewal was granted in contravention of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Trade Marks Rules, 2002 and particularly sub-section (4) of Section 25 and Rule 66. He has submitted that the Writ Petitioner is an affected person. Even though the Petitioner had lodged his objections, the Registrar granted the request of Respondent No.6 for restoration and renewal of trade mark without taking into consideration the interest of the Petitioner, much less without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It is submitted that the decision of renewal may be set aside. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 has opposed the Petition and submitted that the impugned decision is in accordance with law and that if the same is set aside it will prejudice the contentions of Respondent No.6 in the pending litigation between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 in the Delhi High Court. 5. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.2 shall abide by the orders of this Court. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Petitioner was entitled to be heard before renewal of the trade mark in favour of Respondent No.6. Rule 66 makes it clear that the Registrar shall, while considering the request for restoration or renewal of trade mark, 3 have regard to the interest of other affected persons. The Petitioner claiming to be having trade mark INTEL since 1968, is an affected person. 7. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the controversy between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6, we direct that the impugned decision dated 18th October 2007 of Respondent No.2 for renewal of trade mark No.354552 in Class 9 in favour of Respondent No.6 shall remain in abeyance for a period of two months from today. In the meantime, Respondent No.2 shall give an opportunity of hearing, both to Respondent No.6 and the Petitioner in respect of the application by Respondent No.6 for renewal of the above numbered trade mark and to consider whether the decision taken on 18th October 2007 for renewal of the said trade mark as published in Journal No.1406 dated 16th December 2008 should be recalled or whether it should stand. It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy between the parties and Respondent No.2 shall take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. 8. We further record the statement being made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that for a period of two months from today the Petitioner shall not proceed with the Suit or any other proceedings against Respondent No.6 before any forum. 9. It is clarified again that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 4 10. Respondent No.2 shall give notice to the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 at the address indicated in the cause title of the Writ Petition and also to their respective learned Advocates appearing in this Writ Petition. 11. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.