- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO.628 OF 2002 IN MISC.PETITION NO.29 OF 1992 ... Hindustan Unilever Limited ...Appellant v/s. Girnar Exports & anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.H.W.Kane with Mr.Amit Jamshindikar i/b Cr.Bayley & Co. for the Appellant. Mr.Tehemtan N.Daruwalla with Mr.Salil Shah, Mr.Ankit Lohia, Ms.Hemlata Marathe and Ms.Rashmi Thakur i/b Jehangir Gulabbhai & Bilimoria & Daruwalla for Respondent No.1. ... - 2 - CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 25TH MARCH, 2009 P.C.: 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent M/s Girnar Exports states that the Respondent will not use the label, registration of which is challenged in the present proceedings, and that the Respondent will apply to the Registrar of Trademarks for registration of amended label and that the Respondent will use only the amended label. Statement is accepted. 2. In the present appeal, the Appellants have challenged the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing Misc.Petition No.29 of 1992 passed by the learned single Judge of this court. That petition was filed challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade-marks dated 10-2-1992 registering the present label of the Respondent. - 3 - 3. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent that the Respondent will not use the label which is the subject matter of this appeal, it is no longer necessary for the Appellant to challenge the registration of that label. As these proceedings arise out of challenge made by the Appellant to the registration of the label which, now in view of the statement referred to above, is not being used by the Respondent, all these proceedings are rendered infructuous and therefore are disposed of as such. It is clarified that while considering the application to be submitted by the Respondent for the amendment of the label, the Deputy Registrar shall consider that application on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by him in the order dated 10-2-1992, as also the order of the learned single Judge which was challenged in the Appeal. Appeal disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) - 4 - (A.A.SAYED, J.)