Full Text
Date of Decision: 18th May, 2022.
W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & REVIEW PET. 102/2022 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula and Mr. Shashi P.
Ojha, Advocates. (M:9891584230)
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Ms. S. Bushra Kazim, Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr. Sagar Mehlawat, Advocates.
(M:9810788606)
Mr. Shakti Dhar Ojha, Deputy Mr. Juneja in person.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Deputy Registrar of Trademark & GI in person.
JUDGMENT
21 WITH + W.P.(C)-IPD 88/2021 TERRACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD...... Petitioner Through: None.
VERSUS
THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS & ANR...... Respondents Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Ms. S. Bushra Kazim, Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr. Sagar Mehlawat, Advocates. 22 WITH + W.P.(C)-IPD 103/2021 PARVESH KAMBOJ..... Petitioner versus THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS & ORS...... Respondents 2022:DHC:1956 Through: Mr. Davesh Vashishtha and Mr. Sharab Srivastava, Advocates for R-3. (M:9958445115) 2(SB) AND + W.P.(C) 1907/2022 & CM APPLs. 5485/2022, 11118/2022, 12729/2022 SOUMYA JOSHI..... Petitioner versus REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS NEW DELHI & ANR...... Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. There are two aspects being considered in these matters. i) The first relates to the review application filed on behalf of the officers of the CGPDTM seeking review of the order dated 21st March, 2022, by which Rs.[1] lakh was imposed as costs on each of the officers for lapses in communicating incorrect facts to the Court. ii) The second concerns the issue of a large number of pending oppositions, ripe for hearing, in the CGPDTM office.
3. Post the passing of the order dated 21st March, 2022, and filing of the review petition, this Court has heard the matters on 8th April, 2022, 11th April, 2022 and today. Mr. Shakti Dhar Ojha, Deputy Registrar, CGPDTM, Mumbai and two officers Mr. Sachin Sharma and Mr. Juneja - have joined the various hearings. Affidavits have also been filed by some of these officials, explaining the reasons why the Court was not informed that more than 7000 oppositions were filed and taken on record, beyond the period of limitation. While reading the affidavits, the impression that the Court gets is that there has been a clear lack of communication between the various officers in the CGPDTM and conflicting notices were issued in respect of acceptance of oppositions. It is also submitted by the officers that they were not in the CGPDTM in the capacity of hearing officers and were therefore unaware of any oppositions being accepted beyond the limitation period. Further, the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation concerning extension of limitation period in various matters during the pandemic, also do not seem to have been properly interpreted and understood by the office of CGPDTM.
4. Considering the affidavits dated 10th May, 2022 filed before this Court, and the explanation given by the officers, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify as under: (1)That the lapse, which was attributed to the officials personally, shall be treated as an overall lapse of the office of CGPDTM and not of the said officials individually. The officials are cautioned that in the future it shall be ensured that the directions issued by the CGPTDM shall be issued in a clear and transparent manner, without ambiguities. Further, proper information shall be furnished to the Court whenever called upon. (2)Insofar as the cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on each of the officers is concerned, the same shall stand. However, the ld. Controller General shall take a decision as to whether the said costs are to be deposited by the office as a whole or by any of the officers individually. The Court shall be informed of the said decision on the next date of hearing. (3)Insofar as the cases where registration certificates had been issued and oppositions have now been filed pursuant to the order dated 21st March, 2022, the affidavit of Mr. Prithpal Kaur Sidhu dated 10th May, 2022 has set out the procedure, which would be followed by the office of the CGPDTM, as under:
(4) The above procedure shall be adhered to in respect of oppositions, which may be filed till 30th May, 2022, pursuant to the order dated 21st March, 2022. Accordingly, the above stand of the CGPDTM’s office in respect of the procedure to be followed, is taken on record. (5)Insofar as the pending oppositions are concerned, the affidavit dated 10th May, 2022 has been filed on behalf of Dr. Prithpal Kaur Sidhu, Deputy Registrar IP Office at Dwarka New Delhi, stating the following facts:
(6) As per the above, Mr. Sachin Sharma, Deputy Registrar of TM & GI, CGPDTM, clarifies that 30 new officers are likely to join the various trademark registries in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Ahmedabad from June, 2022. This fact, coupled with the further recruitment that is to be made with the intervention of the UPSC ought to take the strength of Hearing Officers to 59. Accordingly, let the recruitment process begin and be carried out expeditiously, considering the large quantum of oppositions which are pending. (7)In addition, Mr. Sharma submits that the CGPDTM also intends to start a mediation and settlement drive in the Trademark Registry for quicker disposal of the trademark oppositions. (8)Let a decision in this regard be taken in respect of implementing mediation/settlement drive, as also the Hearing Officers being placed in various offices within the next eight weeks, and a further status report be filed in this regard by the CGPDTM, as to the progress of hearings and status of recruitment of officers, for the pending oppositions. The said status report shall be placed before the Court, at least one week before the next date of hearing. (9)During this period, the new officials shall join the various offices of the CGPDTM and the list of cases for hearing of opposition matters shall be finalized. The matters shall be taken up for hearing after issuing public notices on the website of the CGPDTM.
5. In W.P.(C)-IPD 103/2021, Mr. Davesh Vashishtha, ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, submits that the limitation to file the opposition ought not to be extended in his case, as the Appellant ought to have been vigilant and there is also an active litigation pending between the parties. The said proceedings are as under: (1)CS (COMM) 540/2020 titled Groz Enterprises Tools Pvt Ltd. v. Kamboj Enterprises & Ors., before the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2)FAO-IPD 38/2021 titled Groz Enterprises Tools Pvt Ltd. v. Kamboj Enterprises & Ors.
6. Heard. The order passed by this Court on 21st March, 2022 was in a batch of matters, wherein the oppositions to trademark applications had been rejected on the ground that they were filed beyond the four months’ limitation period, which was contrary to the extension of limitation orders passed by the Supreme Court from time to time during the pandemic. The reasons for the said order have been clearly elaborated in the order itself.
7. Accordingly, it is clear that in case the Appellant in W.P.(C)-IPD 103/2021, files an opposition pursuant to the order dated 21st March, 2022, the said opposition proceeding shall be decided in accordance with law on its own merits. Mr. Vashishth, ld. Counsel submits that the Appellant has already filed the opposition. It is clarified that the filing of the opposition and the suspension of the registration certificate of the Respondent, shall not affect the merits of the dispute between the parties, both in the suit and the appeal mentioned above, as the opposition has been permitted to be filed on a technical ground (limitation) and not on merits. Thus, the said opposition proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law and such proceedings shall not affect the suit or any other disputes pending between the parties. Clarified accordingly.
8. List all these matters on 3rd August, 2022 for receiving of the status reports to be filed by the office of the CGPTDM.
9. The present order shall be communicated to the Secretary, UPSC by the Registry, as also through Mr. Harish V. Shankar, ld. CGSC, to enable the UPSC to take steps immediately for recruitment of further Hearing Officers.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MAY 18, 2022/dk/ms