Calcutta High Court Rules Foreign Notarized Documents Valid Without Apostille in Marriott Trademark Dispute

The Calcutta High Court recently delivered a pivotal judgment in the trademark opposition case of Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. Sunjoy Hans and Others, addressing the admissibility of foreign notarized documents in Indian legal proceedings.

Marriott Worldwide Corporation, a globally recognized hospitality group, opposed the registration of the trademark “New Marrion” filed by Sunjoy Hans in Class 43, which includes hotel and restaurant services. Marriott contended that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to its well-known trademark “MARRIOTT.”

The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks dismissed Marriott’s opposition on the ground that the affidavit supporting the opposition, notarized in Maryland, USA, was not apostilled, and therefore could not be accepted as valid evidence.

The central legal question before the Court was whether a foreign notarized document must be apostilled to be admissible in Indian trademark proceedings, and whether the Registrar was justified in rejecting Marriott’s evidence solely due to the absence of an apostille.

The Court examined the affidavit notarized in Maryland and noted that it complied with the legal requirements of the foreign jurisdiction. It held that there was no legal mandate under Indian law requiring apostille certification when the document had already been notarized abroad.

Rejecting the Registrar’s procedural objection, the Court emphasized that dismissing evidence on the sole ground of missing apostille violated the principles of natural justice. The Court underscored that such technicalities should not impede the examination of substantive merits in trademark oppositions.

The judgment referenced established legal precedents affirming that notarized documents from foreign countries must be accepted in Indian courts and tribunals without mandatory apostille certification.

Sunjoy Hans argued that the appeal had become infructuous as the contested mark was already registered and maintained that the Registrar acted within his rights in refusing to accept non-apostilled documents.

However, the Court observed that the Registrar had dismissed the opposition without considering its merits, relying exclusively on the absence of an apostille on the affidavit.

By overruling the Registrar’s decision, the Calcutta High Court reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice in trademark disputes.

This ruling provides clarity on the treatment of foreign notarized documents in Indian trademark proceedings, ensuring that parties are not unfairly prejudiced by rigid procedural demands.

The decision is expected to influence future trademark oppositions and related IP litigation where foreign evidence is involved, promoting a fairer and more pragmatic approach.

The case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding natural justice and preventing procedural formalism from obstructing the resolution of trademark conflicts.

Trademark practitioners and litigants should take note of this precedent when submitting foreign notarized affidavits or evidence in Indian trademark matters.

The ruling aligns with India’s obligations under international conventions and reflects a balanced approach towards cross-border legal documentation in intellectual property disputes.

Overall, the Calcutta High Court’s judgment marks a progressive step in harmonizing procedural requirements with substantive rights in Indian trademark law.