Trademark Opposition Reply (Counter-Statement) — Draft

BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS,
TRADE MARKS REGISTRY, [Mumbai / Delhi / Kolkata / Chennai / Ahmedabad]

IN THE MATTER OF the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Application No. [Application No.] in Class [Class]
for registration of the trade mark [Mark]
in the name of [Name of Applicant] ..... APPLICANT

AND IN THE MATTER OF Opposition No. [Opposition No.]
thereto by [Name of Opponent] ..... OPPONENT

COUNTER-STATEMENT
(Filed on Form TM-O under Section 21(2) read with Rule 44)

The Applicant, in answer to the Notice of Opposition dated [Date] served on it,
submits its Counter-Statement as follows:

1. The Applicant is the bona fide proprietor of the trade mark [Mark] and applied
   for its registration under Application No. [Application No.] in Class [Class] in
   respect of [goods/services], claiming user since [date / "proposed to be used"].

2. Save as expressly admitted herein, the Applicant DENIES each and every
   allegation, ground and contention in the Notice of Opposition as if the same
   were set out and traversed seriatim.

3. With reference to paragraph [__] of the Notice of Opposition, the Applicant
   denies that the impugned mark is identical with or deceptively similar to the
   Opponent's mark [___]. The rival marks differ in [structure / phonetics /
   appearance / meaning] and there is no likelihood of confusion under
   Section 11(1) of the Act.

4. With reference to paragraph [__], the Applicant denies any violation of
   Section 9 (absolute grounds). The mark is inherently distinctive / has acquired
   distinctiveness by long and continuous use since [date] and is neither
   descriptive nor customary in the trade.

5. With reference to paragraph [__], the Applicant denies that the Opponent is the
   prior adopter/user or proprietor of any conflicting mark, and puts the Opponent
   to strict proof of its alleged reputation, goodwill and user.

6. The Applicant states that the goods/services, trade channels and consumers of
   the rival marks are different, and that the two marks have honestly and
   concurrently co-existed / the Applicant is entitled under Section 12 (honest
   concurrent use).

7. The Opposition is misconceived, vexatious and liable to be dismissed with costs.

PRAYER:

The Applicant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Registrar be pleased to:
   (a) dismiss Opposition No. [Opposition No.] with costs; and
   (b) allow Application No. [Application No.] to proceed to registration; and
   (c) pass such further order as deemed fit.

VERIFICATION:
I, [Name], [designation], the Applicant / authorised signatory of the Applicant,
verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 above are true to my knowledge and
belief and nothing material has been concealed.

Verified at [City] on this [Day] day of [Month, Year].

                                        _______________________________
                                        Signature of Applicant /
                                        Authorised Signatory
                                        Through: [Name of Agent/Advocate],
                                        Regn./Enrolment No. [___]