Summary
In the case of M/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court remanded five trademark applications for de novo adjudication. The Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing procedural irregularities by the Trade Marks Registry. It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to examine the applications afresh after issuing notices to all concerned parties.
Background
The case arose from five writ petitions filed by Kamdhenu Limited challenging the acceptance of five trademark applications by the Trade Marks Registry. The petitioner (Kamdhenu) alleged that 16 of its registered trademarks were not reflected in the Search Reports accompanying the Examination Reports issued for the impugned applications. The Court found that the trademark applications were accepted without due consideration of existing marks, suggesting a failure in compliance with Rule 33 of the Trademark Rules and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act.
Questions Before the Court
-
-
- Whether the Trade Marks Registry failed to follow statutory procedure under Rule 33 and Section 11 in examining the applications.
- Whether the High Court can exercise suo moto jurisdiction under Article 226 in such a case.
- Whether the Court can remand the applications without issuing notice or hearing respondent no. 4.
- Whether alternative remedies available under the Trade Marks Act barred exercise of Article 226 powers.
-
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Petitioner (Kamdhenu Limited)
-
-
- Submitted that its existing trademarks were ignored in the Search Reports.
- Alleged that the acceptance of the impugned applications was mechanical and lacked application of mind.
- Relied on previous case law to argue that compliance with Rule 33 is mandatory.
-
Respondents No. 1 to 3 (Government Authorities)
-
-
- Acknowledged procedural lapses.
- Filed an affidavit stating willingness to withdraw acceptance under Section 19 and re-examine the applications.
- Confirmed that administrative action was initiated against the responsible Examiners.
-
Respondent No. 4 (Affected Applicant of the Accepted Marks)
-
-
- Objected to the order being passed without notice or hearing.
- Argued that the petitions should be dismissed on maintainability grounds as alternative remedies were available.
- Relied on earlier judgments to oppose the remand without due process.
-
Court’s Analysis
Court’s Analysis of Procedural Lapses in Trademark Examination
The Court observed that the acceptance orders for the impugned applications were issued within minutes of receipt of responses to the Examination Reports. According to the court, this showed a lack of application of mind. The Court held that the Registrar acted in dereliction of statutory duties under Rule 33 and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act.
Court’s Exercise of Suo Moto Powers under Article 226
The Court stated that it is duty-bound to set procedural wrongs right under Article 226. It referred to the judgments in Chhabil Das Agarwal and Gujarat Ambuja Cement to affirm that availability of alternative remedies is a rule of self-imposed restraint and not a jurisdictional bar.
On Notice and Hearing Objections by Respondent No. 4
The Court noted that it had not issued notice to respondent no. 4 but justified this based on the peculiar facts of the case. It cited its earlier directions on 09.05.2025 and 15.05.2025 and the government’s affidavit confirming action against the Examiners. The Court also distinguished the cases cited by respondent no. 4 on the ground that in those cases, notices were already issued and opposition proceedings were pending.
On Maintainability and Alternative Remedies
The Court observed that although Kamdhenu could have filed oppositions under Section 21, it had approached the Court within the statutory deadline. As per the Court, given the gross irregularities and risk of similar occurrences, it was appropriate to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction.
Findings
The Court remanded all five trademark applications back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The Court directed that the Registrar issue notices to all concerned parties and proceed afresh.
Case Citation: M/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)-IPD 29/2025 to 33/2025, order dated 28 May 2025, Delhi High Court. Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20126283/
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog.