Delhi High Court
Kishore Kumar vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2020
$~1 to 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th March, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 2325/2010
KISHORE KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover and Mr. Rohan
Yadav, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Mrs.
Biji Rajesh and Ms. Eshita,
Advocates. (M:9999285585)
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 10040/2019 & CM APPLS. 41542/2019, 52388/2019
M/S B.E.C. INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Ms. Avani
Kapoor, Mr. Rudratti and Mr. Rohan
Yadav, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms.
Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Govt. Pleader,
Ms. Roshni, Mr. Shiram, Advocate.
(M:9953899908) along with Mr.
Pawan Kumar Pandey,
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 11284/2019 & CM APPL. 46493/2019
ASIANET STAR COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumant Narang, Advocate.
(M:9810621272)
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. ..... Respondent
W.P.(C) 2325/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of 20
Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Mrs.
Biji Rajesh and Ms. Eshita,
Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
W. P. (C) 2325/2010
1. The Petitioner was the proprietor of the registered trade mark
"HOMELITE" in Class 9 bearing No. 771268. The application for
registration of the trade mark was filed on 6th October, 1997 and the
registration certificate was issued to the Petitioner on 23rd March, 2006.
Sometime in August, 2009, the Petitioner applied for renewal of the trade
mark under TM-12 and TM-13. However, a letter was issued by the
Registrar of Trade Marks to the effect that the renewal fee had not been paid
within the prescribed time and hence, the mark is likely to be removed. The
same was replied to by the Petitioner's counsel vide letter dated 21st
December, 2009, wherein it was informed that no form O-3 notice had been
received by the Petitioner and hence, the mark could not be removed. The
Petitioner was also willing to file form TM-56 for renewal/restoration along
with any penalty. The status on the Trade Marks Registry's (hereinafter,
"TMR") website showed the trade mark as 'abandoned'. Hence, the writ
petition.
W. P. (C) 10040/2019
2. The order dated 17th September, 2019 records the factual background
to this petition as follows:
"2. The Petitioner is the owner and registered
proprietor of trademark bearing No. 278366 in class
9 for the mark "B.E.C. (logo)". The said mark was
applied for in the year 1972 and was registered in
1978. The same was last renewed for a period of 10
years from 16th February, 2007. The next renewal had
to be done prior to 16th February, 2017. The
Petitioner's case is that it did not receive any notice
for renewal and accordingly, it could also not apply
for renewal as the counsel dealing with the matter
had passed away and there was some
miscommunication.
3. Sometime in August, 2019, the Petitioner, while
sending its registration to a proposed joint venture
partner realised that the same was not renewed. It
therefore approached a trademark attorney and tried
to deposit the renewal fee, however, it noticed an
online notice uploaded as O-3 notice on the
trademark registry's website. A screenshot of the
same has been placed on page 34 of the petition. Ld.
counsel submits that when the said O-3 notice was
opened for viewing, the same was shown as form RG-
3, purportedly dated 2nd November, 2016.
4. The submission of Mr. Neeraj Grover, ld. counsel
is that form RG-3 was, in fact, a new form which was
introduced only with the notification of the
trademarks rules in 2017, with effect from 6th March,
2017. Thus, he submits that it is surprising that the
notice dated 2nd November, 2016 is called form RG-3.
According to him, it is clear that the form O-3 notice
was never dispatched and accordingly, the Petitioner
ought to be permitted to renew his trademark.
5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent submits that she has been served with an
advance copy and seeks time for taking instructions.
6. A perusal of the website screenshots shows that the
O-3 notice is purportedly dated 2nd November, 2016.
There can be no dispute that the form RG-3 notice
only came into effect from 6th March, 2017. The O-3
notice, therefore, could not have been an RG-3 notice
if the notice was actually issued on 2nd November,
2016. The fact that the form is wrongly uploaded with
the date of 2nd November, 2016 is also evident from
the fee being charged i.e., Rs.10,000/-, which is the
newly notified annual fee, unlike the annual fee in
form O-3 which was Rs.5,000/-. These facts clearly
indicate that there is something amiss in the
uploading of these forms and the same is prima facie
not as per procedure and the Rules."
3. Thereafter, ld. counsel for the Registrar of Trade Marks has taken
instructions in the matter.
W. P. (C) 11284/2019
4. The facts of this petition are recorded in order dated 22nd October,
2019 as follows:
"2. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
bringing to the notice of the Court that the trademark
of the Petitioner was deemed to have been abandoned
for non-filing of renewal fee and seeking permission
to renew the same. The stand of the Petitioner is that
the O-3 notice for renewal was not issued by the
Registrar of Trade Marks. As per the orders of the
Division Bench of this Court, as also the Bombay
High Court in Malhotra Book Depot v. Union of
India & Ors., 2012 (49) PTC 354 (Del.) and Cipla
Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. [W.P.
No.1669 of 2012, decided on 23rd September, 2013]
respectively, if O-3 notices are not issued, the marks
cannot be treated to be abandoned. The stand of the
Petitioner is that when it checked the website of the
Trademark Registry around 20th June, 2019, no O-3
notice in respect of the Petitioner's trademark
No.586576 was uploaded on the website. Thereafter,
the Petitioner applied for renewal, along with the past
fee/penalty. Surprisingly, on 30th July, 2019, the
Petitioner found the O-3 notice, which was uploaded
with the date of 5th September, 2016. The contention
of ld. counsel for the Petitioner is that the fact that
this O-3 notice is backdated is evident from the notice
which is titled as "Form RG-3". This form came into
effect only on 6th March 2017, when the new Trade
Mark Rules were notified. Thus, "Form RG-3" did
not exist as of 2016. Thus, according to the Petitioner,
the O-3 notice was never issued and the mark ought
not to be treated as abandoned.
3. According to the Registrar of Trade Marks, O-3
notices were sent on 12th September, 2016 to the
Petitioner i.e., Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd.
at C-20, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi -
110016. The bar code issued by the post office is
relied upon by the Registrar of Trade Marks, which
has been handed across to the Court."
W. P. (C) 2325/2010
W. P. (C) 10040/2019 & CM APPLs. 41542/2019 (stay), 52388/2019
(exemption)
W. P. (C) 11284/2019 & CM APPL. 46493/2019 (interim direction)
5. All the above three petitions raised issues in respect of the renewal of
the respective registered trademarks and the fact that renewal notices (Form
- O3) were not received by the registered proprietors. During the hearing in
these petitions, it was noticed that there was a need for streamlining the
process of registration of trade-marks as O-3 notices were not being sent to
the parties, leading to the abandonment of the marks. Moreover, in one of
the cases, form RG-3 notice, which was introduced in 2017 under the Trade
Mark Rules, 2017, was uploaded in place of the alleged O-3 notice which
was indeed mysterious as the date of the notice was 2nd November, 2016 and
the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 came into effect only on 6th March, 2017.
Under the regime which was prevalent prior to the Trade Mark Rules, 2017,
only an O-3 notice could have been uploaded and thus the uploading of a
RG-3 notice dated 2nd November, 2016 showed that there was something
amiss.
6. In the background of all these writ petitions, the various problems in
the processing of Trade Mark applications were considered and on 17th
September, 2019, the following order was passed in W.P.(C) 110040/2019:
"7. Trademark rights are extremely valuable
rights. Without issuing form O-3 notices, the said
marks cannot be treated as abandoned and
renewal fee would have to be permitted to be paid
by the Petitioner. As per the Division Bench
Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Cipla
Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
[W.P. No. 1669 of 2012, decided on 23rd
September, 2013] and the Delhi High Court in
Malhotra Book Depot v. Union of India & Ors,
2012 (49) PTC 354 (Del.), the dispatch of a form
O-3 notice is compulsory and mandatory prior to
abandoning a trademark for non-renewal.
Accordingly, the Petitioner ought to be permitted
to pay the renewal fee which it is not being able to
do as is evident from page 33 of the writ petition.
8. Under these circumstances, the following
interim directions are passed:
i. The Petitioner is permitted to approach the ld.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi and deposit the
renewal fee physically if not through the online
method.
ii. The registration of the Petitioner's trademark
shall not be treated as abandoned till the next
date and the Petitioner shall continue to enjoy
all rights as the registered proprietor of the
mark.
iii. The Examiner of Trade Marks - Ms. Shikha
Dewan, who has signed the form RG-3 notice
which is purportedly dated 2nd November, 2016,
shall file a personal affidavit as to when this
particular form was uploaded and as to in what
manner it was communicated to the Applicant.
She shall also file relevant documents to support
the said uploading. Ms. Shikha Dewan is
directed to be present in Court on the next date.
9. The ld. Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi
shall file an affidavit as to the manner in which
Renewal notices are being uploaded and
communicated to clients. Further, the affidavit
will deal with the contentions raised int he writ
petition. The Controller General shall conduct an
enquiry into the manner in which an O-3 notice
was purportedly uploaded on 2nd November, 2016
whereas the actual form which is uploaded came
into effect only from 6th November, 2017. The
enquiry shall be conducted by a senior official
from the office of the Controller of Patents,
Designs and Trade Marks. The Enquiry Report
shall be placed on record before the next date of
hearing."
7. The Examiner of Trade Marks appeared and explained that though the
Petitioner had filed a TM Form 34 for change of his address on 24th April,
2007, since the same was allowed only on 28th September, 2017, the 0-3
notice dated 5th September, 2016 was dispatched to the earlier address
available with the Respondent in 2016. Insofar as the form O-3 notice
appearing as a form RG-3 notice is concerned, the Examiner submitted that
while she did not have any personal knowledge as to why the O-3 notice is
being reflected as an RG-3 notice, discussions with the IT development team
of NIC has revealed that due to technical errors, some of the 0-3 notices
issued by the office even before 6th March, 2017 were shown in the form of
an RG-3 notice as per the new Trade Marks Ru1es, 2017. It was, however,
clarified that the physical copies sent to the concerned proprietor's registered
offices remained in the proper format.
8. In view of the technical issues which were highlighted by parties, a
need was felt that there ought to be further streamlining of the process of
trade mark applications, and accordingly, this Court had further passed order
dated 31st October, 2019 in WP(C) 11284/2019, as under: -
6. In order to obviate the recurrence of such
situations in the future, which have clearly
become endemic in the Trade Mark Registry, a
proper procedure is required to be established
for the processing of trade mark applications
and registrations. Accordingly, the Registrar of
Trade Marks shall place on record an affidavit
of Mr. Hoshiar Singh, the Head of the Trade
Marks Registry Office, Delhi, detailing the
following aspects:
i) the current procedure for processing of trade
mark applications, including the various steps
starting from filing, acceptance of fee, allocation
of application number, examination and
generation of examination report, acceptance of
responses, hearings held, if any, orders passed on
the said files, grant of trade mark registration
certificates, change of address, change of name,
processing of licences and assignments, renewal
notices, etc. and whether they are dealt with by
one officer or by different departments, even if
they relate to same application. The same may be
explained by means of a flow chart;
ii) the manner and procedure for uploading of
documents which is currently being followed at
each and every stage by the Trade Marks
Registry;
iii) whether it is considered efficient to allocate a
particular trade mark application to a specific
officer who would then process the various forms
filed in respect of that application so that the
familiarity of the officer with the file would enable
efficient processing of the same;
iv) insofar as post-registration formalities, such as
renewals, assignments, etc. are concerned,
whether the same should be dealt with by a
separate department and if so whether post
registration formalities of specific registered trade
marks ought to be handled by a single officer.
7. The above be placed in the form of an affidavit
so that this Court may consider passing
appropriate directions for streamlining of the
processing of trade mark applications on the next
date of hearing."
9. Subsequently, this Court has also passed various directions on 5th
December, 2019 and 13th January, 2020.
10. The entire purpose of passing directions in these petitions has been to
ensure that the processing of Trade Mark applications is properly
streamlined and multiple officers do not handle the same Trade Mark
application leading to lack of a coordinated approach. The TMR had also
deputed Mr. Pawan Kumar Pandey, Deputy Registrar, who has regularly
appeared before the Court. Various stakeholders were also consulted after
the issuance of public notices.
11. In respect of the directions issued on 31st October, 2019, the TMR has
filed affidavits explaining the process and capturing the various steps taken
for implementing a more streamlined process.
12. Vide affidavit dated 13th January, 2020, the TMR reported that the
pendency in the processing of trademarks has reduced considerably. In the
said affidavit, it was stated as under:
"28. I further say that in view of the huge
pendency of applications at different stages,
the processing of applications was re-
engineered and additional posts were
sanctioned by the government which reduced
pendency remarkably. Some key developments
are as under:
(a). Pendency in examination is reduced
to one month from more than a year during
2015-16,
(b). Percentage of acceptance of
applications at the examination stage has
increased to 48% from around 5-6 % during
2015-16,
(c). Pendency in consideration of reply
against the office objection has reduced to
around 1-2 months from more than a year in
2015-16,
(d). Pendency in show-cause hearings
has been reduced to less than two years from
six years in 2015-16.
(e). Pendency in processing of request
related to post registration amendment is
reduced from 87,000/- in April 2017 to around
11,000/- at present.
29. I say that in terms of the order dated
5.12.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court,
stakeholder meetings have been organised at
Delhi on 11.12.2019, at Mumbai on
17.12.2019 and at Chennai on 23.12.2019. A
copy of the summary of the suggestions made
by the stake-holders and office response in
reference to the same has been annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-3.
30. I say that a public notice dated
12.12.2019 has also been issued inviting
suggestions from stake-holders by 10.01.2020.
Copy of public notice dated 12.12.2019 has
been annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE R-4. It is further submitted that
all the suggestions received will be compiled
and due action will be taken by the Trade
Marks Registry as per law. The compiled
report will also be uploaded at the official
website along with the office response.
31. In view of the above it is submitted
that Trade Marks Registry is continuously
endeavouring to improve and speed up the
process of trademark applications. During last
three years, number of meetings with
stakeholders have been held and changes in
the system effected to streamline processes and
reduce difficulties of stakeholders. The office
will make continuous efforts in this regard."
13. A further affidavit dated November, 2019 deposed by Mr. Hoshiar
Singh, Head of Office of the TMR, stated that the function of the Registrar
of Trade Marks is performed through computerised software, the central
server of which is located at the Intellectual Property Office at Delhi.
Comprehensive e-filing services have been introduced and attempts have
been made to coordinate as many functions as possible by the same officer,
including renewal and other post-registration requests.
14. The TMR has also issued public notices seeking the views of various
stakeholders on the improvements that can be effected in the system. The
suggestions given by the stakeholders, as also the comments of the
Registrar, TMR, has been placed on record in the form of a tabulated chart.
15. After perusing the affidavits dated November, 2019, 13th January,
2020 and 6th March, 2020, as well as the public notice dated 20th February,
2020, the tabulated chart placed on record by the TMR is set-out below,
along with directions in respect of each of the suggestions and steps to be
taken for further streamlining the process of registration: -
Sr. Suggestion
Office Responses Directions
No. Received
It is suggested that a
nodal officers for
solving the issued in
time bound manner
be nominated at
Suggestions accepted and
each branches of
an office order dated Accepted.
1 TM registry. It is
03/01/2020 issued in this
further suggested
regard.
that any
commendation send
to nodal officers be
confirmed by
receipt of the same.
It has been informed to
the stakeholders that
processing of TM-M is
already streamlined and
that TM-M is taken up
In view of the response
for disposal by the same
of the Trade Marks
officer who is dealing
Registry, it is directed
with the application at
that all forms filed till
particular stage. The
the stage of
system has been designed
registration are
An issued relating to as such that form filed in
processed by one
streamline of the application is moved
2 officer. At the time of
disposal of TM-M is with the application and
show-cause hearing,
also rose. the officer dealing with
any pending TM-M
application shall require
shall also be disposed
to dispose the pending
of before the mark
form also to proceed
proceeds for
further in the application.
advertisement.
However, again a
direction to show-cause
hearing officers has also
been issued to take up the
amendment request for
disposal at the time of
hearing vide office order
dated 03/01/2020.
It has been informed to
the applicant that notices
have been issued in only
An issue raised in
those matters where the
regard to hearing u/r
office is having dispatch
45(2) where service
details of counter- No directions
3 of the
statement. However if required.
counterstatement
any issue exists in
has not been served
particular matter, same
properly.
may raised to the
concerned hearing officer
in the matter.
It is informed to the
stake-holders that
A request is made to opportunity to upload
Let provision for
provide additional reply to the applicant has
additional uploading
opportunity to been provided stage-
be made in
4 upload document at wise. There is space
accordance with the
hearing stage which constraint exists as
Rules in the new e-
is limited one time present, however, due
TMR system.
at present. care will be given at the
time of implementation
of the new eTMR system.
It is informed that
presently office is
There is no
clubbing the matter
requirement for
related to same agent for
A suggestion is clubbing applications
particular period for
made to put of similar trade-marks
scheduling of hearing.
application related as issues as to which
5 Fixation of similar
to similar trademark marks are similar will
trademark related to
before same also arise. That would
same application before
officers. put enormous burden
same office required
on the Trade Marks
further discussion in
Registry
regard to limitation and
challenges.
Change be effected on
or before 30th April
Applicant/opponent Request Accepted. 2020 so that the email
6 email id should be Necessary change will be addresses of the
visible to each other. effected soon. opposing parties is
available to all
concerned.
A suggestion is
made to provide
A Public Notice dated Opportunity to update
opportunity to
03/12/2019 was issued to new e-mail ID be
7 update email ID in
provide said provided on or before
application filed
th opportunities. 30th April 2020.
before 6 march,
2017.
Request accepted.
Necessary effort will be Cause list be uploaded
A suggestion made made to upload cause list one month prior to the
to upload opposition at least a month before hearing and notices be
/ show-cause cause w.e.f from 01/04/2020. dispatched 30 days in
list in time. It is also As far as dispatch of advance. The cause list
requested to send notices in concerned, it is shall contain pre- and
hearing notices in issued 30 days in advance post- lunch slots for
at least 30 days only. However, if any hearing. Email service
advance. delay exists in this regard of notice would be
in some matter, necessary adequate service.
steps will be taken.
Currently there is space
Let allocation of
Additional space contract in present TM
additional space be
may be provided for System. However, this
10 considered with the
uploading request will be considered
implementation of the
documents after the implementation
new e-TMR system.
of new eTMR.
In the case of multi-
Multi-class
class applications, the
application should
trade mark be
be advertised in Suggestions accepted and
advertised in each of
11 respective classes will be done by making
the classes so that
against the present changes in the system.
those persons who
practice of class
wish to oppose the
99.
mark in a particular
class do not miss out
on filing of
oppositions and
burden is not increased
on all trade mark
owners to search the
TMJ for multi-class
category to identify
identical/similar
applications.
Uploading of orders be
implemented on or
before 15th April 2020.
It was informed that this
If the uploading is not
is already under
possible due to server
Daily order sheet be consideration.
space constraints or
arranged to Presently not possible
any other reason, until
12 uploaded in the due to limitation of
the implementation of
application details of present TM system.
the e-TMR system, the
e-register However will be done
order shall be
after the implementation
dispatched to the
of eTMR.
respective parties by e-
mail within a week
after it is passed.
Display board of
hearing matters,
Scheduling of Accepted, and will be
13 hearing be done slot- implemented w.e.f. -- Same as 9 above--
wise to avoid the 01/04/2019.
long waiting for
hearing
The present system is
having its limitation and
this sort of changes may
Let the same be
Multi class search not be possible in the
14 implemented in the
facility be provided. same. However, it is
new e-TMR system.
further informed that this
requirement will be
available in new eTMR.
Show-Cause hearing
scheduled in bulk and the
same is divided among
the present authorised
hearing officer for the
purpose. In case hearing
Display of Hearing officer take leave then
Board related to with a view to avoid
15 --Same as 9 above--
show cause hearing inconvenience to the
in Advance. parties, hearing officer
wise board decided by
system on the same day.
However, Slotting of the
matter in to two parts i.e.
pre-lunch and post lunch
is under consolidation.
At present there is no
such module exist for
Processing of
processing of such Let the same be
Registered user
16 request, however same implemented in the
request on TM-U, Partial
will be come in existence new e-TMR system.
Partial Assignment.
with
implementation of eTMR.
The office is in process to
update the same and
17 FAQ be updated updated version will No directions required.
uploaded at official
website shortly.
In view of the making Let the digital
office environment registration
friendly, we stared certificates be
Request for dispatch reducing the use of uploaded within three
of Physical copy of papers. A policy decision months from the date
Registration is taken to shift on when the period for
certificate. issuance of digital filing the notice of
registration certificate. opposition expires, if
Applicant can always no opposition is filed.
print a physical copy.
W.e.f. 30th April
2020, all forms filed
post-registration i.e.,
TM-P's ought to be
processed by the
same officer. O-3 and
RG-3 notices ought
not to be issued till
It may be noted that the pending TM-P's
processing of post are disposed of, as
registration amendment stated in the affidavit
required is done as such, of the Deputy
all request related to Registrar dated 6th
single application March, 2020, the
processed by the same relevant portion of
officer. The office is which reads as under:
committed to dilute the -
pendency in this area and "I state that to
Some suggestion avoid discrepancy
dispose such request
received in regard to in issuance of O-3/
within three month from
19 processing of TM-P RG-3 notices
the date of filing. It is
and branch by single during the
further clarified that
officer. pendency of TM-
hearing, if required, is
provided at the branch P's, the Registry
under which jurisdiction will implement a
the original application system wherein O-
filed. However normal 3/RG-3 notices
processing is done by will not be issued
which officers or at unless the pending
which location should TM-P's are
not be area of concern to disposed of by the
the applicant. officer concerned.
The same will be
implemented in
the new e-TMR
system which is
expected to be
implemented by
the end of this
year."
It is inform to the
stakeholders that Annual
Report is published after
the approval of the
Early publication of competent authority and No directions
the Annual report. placement in the required.
parliament only.
However, possible
measure may be taken to
reduce delay in future.
There is Statutory
provision for restriction
of registration of TM of
GI should not be registered GI. However, No directions
registered as TM. if some discrepancy required.
noted specifically, may
be brought is the
knowledge of the office.
It was inform to the
stakeholder that specific
nomenclature is given for
speedy allotment or
processing of application
Request made to
such as reply to
avoid discrepancy in
examination report, reply No directions
22 regard to filing of
to formality check fail, required.
letter /
etc. Everyone should
correspondence.
take proper care to file
the document properly.
However, in some
specific cases, office may
be consulted, if required.
"Note 1:
Some suggestion received relating to structural changes in the system,
such as visibility of classes of opposition in case of multiclass application,
display of email ID in opposition BAR, image search, multiclass search,
display of daily order sheet, etc. will be considered at the time of
implementation of new eTMR system as the office is in process to finalize
and implement new eTMR system for electronic processing in near future.
Due consultation/testing will also be done with representative of
associations before implementation of the same.
Note 2:
Some general queries rose without any suggestion in this regard. It is to
inform that FAQ document will be updated shortly covering all such
queries."
16. A perusal of these affidavits and the tabulation above, shows that
several suggestions made by the stakeholders have already been agreed to by
the Registrar of Trade Marks. Further, insofar as the processing of Trade
Mark applications by the same officer is concerned, form TM-Ms are to be
processed by the same officer. The table above consists broadly of two
categories of directions which are to be implemented. Some are to be
implemented w.e.f. 30th April 2020. Steps shall also be taken by TMR to
ensure implementation as directed. It has been further submitted on behalf of
the Registrar of Trade Marks that a new e-TMR system is likely to be
established and put into motion by December, 2020. Let the needful be
accordingly done for implementing the e-TMR system as contemplated and
the various suggestions and directions in respect thereof as contained in the
table above be implemented in the said system.
17. As per Mr. Pawan Kumar Pandey, pendency in the Trade Mark
application process has reduced. All the measures taken by the Registrar of
Trade Marks are taken on record and the TMR is directed to adhere to the
statements made in the affidavits filed before this Court.
18. Since the processing and setting up of more efficient measures, as part
of the e-TMR system, is an on-going process, till the same is fully
implemented, the Petitioners/any other stakeholders are permitted to submit
any further suggestions to the Registrar of Trade Marks within a period of
six weeks from today for being considered for implementation in the e-TMR
system, in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks
Rules, 2017.
19. Ld. counsel submit that the Trade Marks insofar as the present writ
petitions are concerned, in W.P.(C) 10040/2019 and W.P.(C) 11284/2019
the same have been renewed. If renewal of the Trade Mark in W.P.(C)
2325/2010 is pending, let the same be processed within a period of eight
weeks and the renewal certificate be granted. No further orders are called for
in these writ petitions.
20. With these observations, the petitions and all pending applications are
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 06, 2020
dj/MR/T
(Corrected and released on 19th March, 2020)
