The Delhi High Court weighed in on the issue of transparency in trademark procedures, emphasizing the necessity for accessibility to brief orders. The Court, led by Justice Prathiba M Singh, heard the case of Laxmi Kohlu Ghar, a petitioner seeking directions from the Trade Mark Registry regarding the prosecution of trademark applications and compliance with court-issued directives. The Court noted that a concise order, required when directing the advertisement before accepting a mark, should be accessible on the online portal of the Trade Marks Registry for litigants to refer to.
Brief Facts of the Case:
Laxmi Kohlu Ghar, a business established in 1953, specialising in edible oils and related products, approached the Delhi High Court with concerns surrounding trademark applications. The petitioner alleged the existence of arbitrary examination processes for new trademark applications and raised issues regarding the mechanical acceptance of undeserving trademark applications without adequate justifications. Furthermore, Laxmi Kohlu Ghar highlighted the lack of transparency in the acceptance, refusal, or advertising of applications, with reasons not being disclosed online. The petitioner also voiced grievances about the neglect in maintaining the purity of the Register of Trade Marks. Additionally, Laxmi Kohlu Ghar asserted its status as the first and prior adopter of the 'LAXMI' mark, claiming statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TMA’), backed by multiple registrations and copyrights.
Contentions of the Parties:
In response, the respondents, represented by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and Registrar of Trade Marks, argued that the reasons for accepting or directing the advertisement of a mark were duly recorded in an internal note sheet. They contended that this information was accessible upon filing a Right to Information (RTI) application, asserting adherence to the procedural guidelines outlined in the TMA. The respondents further responded to the Court’s directive, seeking instructions and presenting rebuttal documents.
Observations by the Court:
The Court drew attention to the non-compliance of mandatory directions issued by the Court in 'Jai Bhagwan Gupta vs. Registrar of Trade Marks' (2020: DHC:1532), a case that had set guidelines for the proper examination and advertisement of trademarks. The Court underscored the importance of a deliberate and conscious application of mind by the Registrar of Trademarks, stating that the automatic or indiscriminate advertisement of trademark applications tends to increase the burden upon the applicants.
The Court directed attention to two judgments from coordinate benches, emphasizing the necessity for a brief order at the time of acceptance or rejection of a mark. The Court questioned the Trade Mark Registry's practice of recording such orders in an internal note sheet, stating that these brief orders should ideally be available on the online portal of the Trade Marks Registry for easy reference by litigants.
The Court expressed doubt regarding the need for litigants to file applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to access these orders, deeming it unnecessarily burdensome.
The Decision of the Court:
The matter was listed for further submissions on January 25, 2024, as the Central Government sought instructions in the case.
Case Name: Laxmi Kohlu Ghar vs. Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks And Registrar Of Trade Marks & Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M Singh
Case No.: W.P.(C)-IPD 18/2022
Advocates of the Petitioner: Mr. Himanshu Arora, Mr. Gaurav Arora, Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora and Ms. Smriti Arora
Advocates of the Respondents: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Ms Prerna Dhall
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
