"Unacceptable": Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost Each On Two Officials From Trade Marks Controller General's Office For Concealing Facts

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh each on two officials of office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) over non-disclosure of facts, thereby wasting judicial time. Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a batch of petitions filed alleging the arbitrary and discriminatory manner in which the CGPDTM had disallowed the petitioners from filing oppositions to the trademark applications, which each of them wished to oppose. The said oppositions were not entertained on the ground that they were proposed to be filed beyond the time period of four months, as prescribed under sec. 21 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.The petitioners had sought benefit of the Supreme Court's order, extending statutory limitation in view of impending pandemic.At the outset, the Court recorded its dismay over non disclosure on the part of the officials about the fact that around 6,000 to 7,000 oppositions were filed during the pandemic period beyond the four month period of limitation and were entertained by the CGPDTM."On the contrary, the CGPDTM has not only failed to entertain the oppositions but has gone ahead and jeopardized the rights of the applicants and issued trademark registration certificates, despite being in receipt of communications of oppositions/writ petitions. This conduct of the officials of the CGPDTM cannot be ignored by this Court," the Court said.The Court therefore imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh each on two officers of CGPDTM namely Sachin Sharma, Deputy Registrar of Trademarks & GI and Juneja, Assistant Registrar of Trademarks, to be deposited with the DHCBA Pandemic Relief Fund by 10th April, 2022.The Court said that the amount shall be utilised only for the purposes of distribution to lawyers and their families who have deceased/suffered, during the pandemic.The Court also sought a proposed mechanism for the manner in which CGPDTM intends to deal with the oppositions pending before it, taking note of the fact that more than 2 lakh oppositions are pending before the said office. Observing that the said pendency is due to the lack of officials to hear such oppositions, the Bench sought for a complete year wise chart of oppositions which are pending, where pleadings are complete and the matters have matured for hearing, along with the proposed mechanism.Insofar as registered trademarks qua which oppositions are filed are concerned, the Court said that where trademark registration certificates have been issued, the affidavit shall also inform the procedure in which the said certificates shall either be cancelled or recalled.It was the case of the petitioners that the benefit of the order of the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation had been selectively given to some opponents and not to all. It was argued that when some of the opponents tried to file oppositions after the expiry of the four-month period, in view of the extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court, the portal did not permit the said filing. The Court was apprised that the Petitioners tried to file the hard copy of oppositions which were also stated to have not been accepted. Repeated emails written by the opponents to the concerned office in the Trademark Registry also evinced no response whatsoever. It was thus the Petitioners' grievance that despite the Trademark Registry being aware of the oppositions of the Petitioners and of the present writ petitions having been filed, registration certificates were issued in three of the matters, without any reference to the Petitioners. The Court noted that regarding the extension of limitation period, various orders passed by the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation case make it very clear that the period between 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 has to be fully excluded for the purpose of calculation of limitation under all enactments and statutes, both before judicial and quasi judicial bodies."There can be no doubt about the fact that the above order would be applicable to filing of oppositions under Section 21 of the Trademarks Act as well. The fact that this order is applicable to the filing of oppositions is also clear from the public notice issued by the CGPDTM dated 18th January, 2022, which records that the period of limitation shall be computed in accordance with the earlier order of the Supreme Court dated 10th January, 2022," the Court observed. The Court observed that when the orders of the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation were rightly acknowledged by the CGPDTM, there was no reason whatsoever, to not accept the oppositions which were filed by the Petitioners. Accordingly, the following directions were issued:- The delay in filing of oppositions by all four Petitioners in respect of the applications which they intend to oppose as set out above, is condoned. They shall now file their oppositions by 31st March, 2022, either online or offline. The same shall be...

"Unacceptable": Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost Each On Two Officials From Trade Marks Controller General's Office For Concealing Facts

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags