{"id":145245,"date":"2025-08-20T08:00:50","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T02:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=145245"},"modified":"2025-08-22T09:21:24","modified_gmt":"2025-08-22T03:51:24","slug":"delhi-high-court-suo-moto-remands-trademark-applications-for-re-examination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/delhi-high-court-suo-moto-remands-trademark-applications-for-re-examination\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court Remands Trademark Applications for Re-Examination"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Background<\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 data-start=\"1567\" data-end=\"1599\"><strong data-start=\"1567\" data-end=\"1597\">Questions Before the Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol>\n<li data-start=\"1603\" data-end=\"1734\">Whether the Trade Marks Registry failed to follow statutory procedure under Rule 33 and Section 11 in examining the applications.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"1738\" data-end=\"1831\">Whether the High Court can exercise suo moto jurisdiction under Article 226 in such a case.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"1835\" data-end=\"1934\">Whether the Court can remand the applications without issuing notice or hearing respondent no. 4.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"1938\" data-end=\"2043\">Whether alternative remedies available under the Trade Marks Act barred exercise of Article 226 powers.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h2 data-start=\"2045\" data-end=\"2085\"><strong data-start=\"2045\" data-end=\"2083\">Arguments Presented By the Parties<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3 data-start=\"2087\" data-end=\"2120\"><em data-start=\"2087\" data-end=\"2118\">Petitioner (Kamdhenu Limited)<\/em><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li data-start=\"2123\" data-end=\"2199\">Submitted that its existing trademarks were ignored in the Search Reports.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2202\" data-end=\"2307\">Alleged that the acceptance of the impugned applications was mechanical and lacked application of mind.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2310\" data-end=\"2391\">Relied on previous case law to argue that compliance with Rule 33 is mandatory.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 data-start=\"2393\" data-end=\"2444\"><em data-start=\"2393\" data-end=\"2442\">Respondents No. 1 to 3 (Government Authorities)<\/em><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li data-start=\"2447\" data-end=\"2480\">Acknowledged procedural lapses.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2483\" data-end=\"2596\">Filed an affidavit stating willingness to withdraw acceptance under Section 19 and re-examine the applications.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2599\" data-end=\"2686\">Confirmed that administrative action was initiated against the responsible Examiners.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 data-start=\"2688\" data-end=\"2751\"><em data-start=\"2688\" data-end=\"2749\">Respondent No. 4 (Affected Applicant of the Accepted Marks)<\/em><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li data-start=\"2754\" data-end=\"2817\">Objected to the order being passed without notice or hearing.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2820\" data-end=\"2934\">Argued that the petitions should be dismissed on maintainability grounds as alternative remedies were available.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2937\" data-end=\"3008\">Relied on earlier judgments to oppose the remand without due process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 data-start=\"3010\" data-end=\"3032\"><strong data-start=\"3010\" data-end=\"3030\">Court\u2019s Analysis<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3 data-start=\"3034\" data-end=\"3452\"><em data-start=\"3034\" data-end=\"3098\">Court\u2019s Analysis of Procedural Lapses in Trademark Examination<\/em><\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"3034\" data-end=\"3452\">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.<\/p>\n<h3 data-start=\"3454\" data-end=\"3802\"><em data-start=\"3454\" data-end=\"3509\">Court\u2019s Exercise of Suo Moto Powers under Article 226<\/em><\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"3454\" data-end=\"3802\">The Court stated that it is duty-bound to set procedural wrongs right under Article 226. It referred to the judgments in <em data-start=\"3633\" data-end=\"3654\">Chhabil Das Agarwal<\/em> and <em data-start=\"3659\" data-end=\"3682\">Gujarat Ambuja Cement<\/em> to affirm that availability of alternative remedies is a rule of self-imposed restraint and not a jurisdictional bar.<\/p>\n<h3 data-start=\"3804\" data-end=\"4290\"><em data-start=\"3804\" data-end=\"3858\">On Notice and Hearing Objections by Respondent No. 4<\/em><\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"3804\" data-end=\"4290\">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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3 data-start=\"4292\" data-end=\"4626\"><em data-start=\"4292\" data-end=\"4337\">On Maintainability and Alternative Remedies<\/em><\/h3>\n<p data-start=\"4292\" data-end=\"4626\">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.<\/p>\n<h2><strong data-start=\"4628\" data-end=\"4640\">Findings<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"5448\" data-end=\"5698\"><strong data-start=\"5448\" data-end=\"5465\">Case Citation: <\/strong><em data-start=\"5468\" data-end=\"5515\">M\/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India &amp; Ors.<\/em>, W.P.(C)-IPD 29\/2025 to 33\/2025, order dated 28 May 2025, Delhi High Court. Available on <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/20126283\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/20126283\/<\/a><\/p>\n<h2 data-start=\"5700\" data-end=\"5901\"><strong data-start=\"5700\" data-end=\"5714\">Disclaimer<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p data-start=\"5700\" data-end=\"5901\" data-is-last-node=\"\" data-is-only-node=\"\">This case blog is based on the author\u2019s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the case of M\/s Kamdhenu Limited v. Union of India &#038; Ors., the Delhi High Court exercised suo moto jurisdiction under Article 226 to address procedural lapses by the Trade Marks Registry in accepting trademark applications. The Court found omissions in the Search Reports and noted the lack of application of mind by the Registry, prompting remand of the applications for fresh examination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":145247,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":260,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,11],"tags":[486,12250,1274,8537,5510,12249,12132,1720,101],"class_list":["post-145245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-india-trademark-case","tag-ip-law","tag-kamdhenu","tag-legal-updates","tag-rule-33","tag-section-11","tag-trade-marks-act","tag-trademark-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145245"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":145291,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145245\/revisions\/145291"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/145247"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}