The facts, as shown in the challenged judgment and other documents, can be summarized as follows: The agent of the objecting company filed a petition with the Administrative Court in Riyadh requesting the resumption of the case previously filed before the Ninth Administrative Circuit of that court, contesting the decision of the Trademark Office to accept the registration of the phrase (...) as a trademark in Class (32) for the (...) beverage factory, a case in which the circuit had previously decided to dismiss the case. Upon referral to the Ninth Administrative Circuit, the case was resumed. In the session dated 28/7/1438 AH, it was ruled to consider the case as if it had never existed for the reasons explained, which are summarized in that Article Fifteen of the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances states: "If the plaintiff does not attend the first session, the court may rule on the case if it is ready for judgment or decide to dismiss it. If sixty days pass without the plaintiff requesting to proceed after dismissal or without attending after proceeding, the case shall be considered as if it had never existed. If the plaintiff requests to proceed thereafter, the court shall, on its own initiative, consider the case as if it had never existed." Since the plaintiff's agent requested to proceed with the case after a period exceeding sixty days, it is necessary to rule to consider it as if it had never existed. Upon the appeal of the plaintiff company's agent before the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh, a judgment was issued on 10/2/1439 AH affirming the judgment of the first instance circuit based on its reasons. On 26/3/1439 AH, the plaintiff company's agent filed an objection to this judgment before this court, requesting the revocation of the judgment and the return of the case to the circuit to rule on his requests. The basis of his objection was that the circuit's application of Article (15) of the Law of Procedures was incorrect because his client did not receive a notification of the session date, so it is not permissible to deprive his client of pleading and defending her rights. Moreover, the Court of Appeal did not provide reasoning in its judgment or address the issue of whether the notification was received or not, and erred in the correct interpretation of Article (15) of the Law of Procedures. The plaintiff's agent concluded his objection by requesting the revocation of the judgment and the return of the case to the Court of Appeal to rule on his requests.

Whereas, upon studying the objection, the attached documents, and the judgment subject to objection, and after reviewing the case file—after the court ordered its annexation to the objection file—it appears that the objection is admissible in form as it was submitted within the statutory period. As for the substance, Article 3 of the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances stipulates that: "It is permissible to notify the dates and procedures stipulated in this law by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt," and Article 6 thereof provides that: "The competent administration in the court shall register the statement of claim if it meets the requirements according to Article (5) of this law... The administration shall record— in the presence of the person who submitted the statement of claim—the date of the session set for its hearing, and refer the cases to the circuits according to rules issued by the President of the Administrative Judicial Council." It appears from these provisions that for the validity of the judgment dismissing the case and arranging its effects, it is necessary to notify the plaintiff of the date of the first session set for its hearing, whether upon submitting the claim through the competent administration in the court or by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt by the plaintiff of the notification letter.

Since the plaintiff by proxy disputes the validity of notifying his client of the session date and claims that his client did not receive a notification of the date, and since the appeal judgment did not address the plaintiff by proxy’s allegations in this regard in its reasons and merely referred to the judgment of the first instance circuit, even though that judgment did not include in its facts or reasons any indication that the plaintiff company was notified of the session date by either of these two methods or one of them, and the circuit did not verify whether the notification of the session date was valid or not. Given this, and since it is established that the failure of the judgment to consider a fundamental defense affecting the outcome reached renders the judgment defective in reasoning and requires its revocation for violating Article (27) of the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances, which requires that the judgment include a comprehensive summary of the essential defenses of the parties to the dispute and the reasons for the judgment including the response to these defenses and the basis of the judgment thereon, and that the absence of reasoning or severe deficiency therein necessitates the revocation of the challenged judgment. Since the challenged judgment lacked the reasons on which it based the affirmation of the primary judgment, it must be revoked and the case referred to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh that issued the judgment to address these observations and decide on its subject anew without considering the previous judgment.

Therefore, the court ruled: to accept the objection in form, and on the substance to revoke the judgment subject to objection, and to return the case to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh to decide it anew without considering the previous judgment.

And Allah is the Grantor of success, and may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and companions altogether.