In a significant ruling on trademark law, the Rajasthan High Court emphasized the importance of issuing a mandatory notice before removing a registered trademark in the “Lala Ji Diamond trademark case.” The Court firmly stated that Jitendra Goyal, the creator of the former trademark “Lala Ji Diamond,” could not lose his rights without following the proper legal procedure. The Court made it clear that a prior notice is mandatory before removing any trademark from the official register, even after its expiry. This case isn’t just about one incense brand. It’s a wake-up call to trademark owners and the Trademark Office alike. Expired doesn’t mean erased—not without procedure.
How the Lala Ji Diamond Trademark Case Began
To fully understand the legal issue, we need to go back to the very beginning of the trademark’s history. The story of the “Lala Ji Diamond” trademark began in 1999, when Jitendra Goyal—the original intellectual property (IP) holder—registered the trademark under the Trademarks Act, 1999. This registration granted him exclusive legal rights to use the name “Lala Ji Diamond” for his incense (agarbatti) products.
But here’s where the twist comes in.
Even after the expiry of the trademark, he (Jitender Goyal) did not do the trademark renewal. Under normal circumstances, this could lead to the mark being removed from the official register. But the Trade Marks Act clearly states that the Registrar cannot remove an expired trademark without first sending a notice in Form RG-3.
When Jitendra Goyal found out that his trademark had been quietly removed from the Trademark Office records, it caused problems for him in protecting his brand. He hadn’t received any official notice about the removal, even though the law requires one to be sent. Because of this, Goyal took the matter to court, which led to a major ruling by the Rajasthan High Court. In his petition to the court, Jitendra Goyal firmly stated that the removal of his trademark without any prior legal notice was simply not acceptable.
What Did the Rajasthan High Court Say About Removing Trademarks Without Notice?
When the case finally reached the Rajasthan High Court, all eyes turned to the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand. The judge took a close look at what had happened—and what should have happened.
After reviewing the facts, the Court made one thing absolutely clear. You can’t just delete a trademark without informing its owner. According to the law, the Registrar of Trade Marks must send a written notice—called Form RG-3—before removing any trademark from the register, even if it has expired.
But in this case, no such notice was ever sent to the owner of Lala Ji Diamond Agarbatti. As a result, the court cancelled the removal of the trademark. It said that if the registrar wants to take such action, they must start over and follow the proper steps.
The judge also gave two important directions:
- The trademark owner must be given an opportunity to present their side, which means Mr. Goyal should be properly notified and allowed to reply.
- If he applies for renewal, the Registrar must deal with the request fairly and according to law.
The Power of Procedure: How IP Law Protects Trademark Rights Even After Expiry
This judgment is more than just a win for one trademark owner—it’s a critical reminder of how Indian Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law is grounded in procedural integrity. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, doesn’t just grant rights—it also lays down a structured process to ensure those rights are not taken away arbitrarily.
The Rajasthan High Court’s judgment sends a message to authorities and rights holders alike:
For registrars: due process is non-negotiable.
For trademark owners: you still have a chance—if the law wasn’t followed, you can fight back.
Conclusion
As India strengthens its position in the global IP landscape, this ruling reinforces confidence in its legal framework, ensuring that rights, even when time-limited, are never removed without reason or respect for the rule of law.
Read Also: Anupam Mittal’s Take on Maganlal Chikki: A Lesson in IP Protection