CGPDTM Issues Order to Re-validate TM Orders Passed by Contractual Staff 

In the aftermath of the very recent controversy surrounding the reports of Trademark orders being passed by contractual staff employed through the Quality Council of India (QCI), the CGPDTM has published an office order (dt. August 13, 2024) explaining the mechanism to revalidate these orders. This office order comes in light of the DPIIT’s direction to form a committee of officers for the above exercise, as pointed out by Sabeeh in his post above. 

As per the devised mechanism, two levels of officers shall be authorized to look into the orders passed by the contractual staff. The Level 1 officers are of the rank of Examiner/ Sr. Examiner of TM and GI; And, Level 2 officers are of the rank of Asst. Registrar of TM and GI. The order states that Level 1 officers shall revisit an application and if that has been processed as per the provisions of the Trademarks Act, they can validate the same. If not, then they may state their reasons and propose a solution under Section 19 (provision for withdrawal of acceptance) or Section 57 (4) (cancel or vary the registration) depending on the case. The recommendation shall then go to the Level 2 officer who may either agree with the recommendation by Level 1 officers or may disagree (recording their reasons) and shall validate the application.  

 The order states that this mechanism shall revisit the orders passed in following cases :-

1. TM Applications processed during the Examination Stage. 
2. TM Application processed during the Pending Application Record Management (PARM) Stage. 
3. TM Applications processed during the Show Cause Hearing Stage 
4. TM Applications processed during the Opposition Stage
5. TM Applications processed during the Post Registration Stage

Though swift action on this issue is appreciated, one might not be wrong to be apprehensive about the effectiveness of the mechanism and whether the Officers will be able to assess the applications properly since a quota of 250 applications/ day has been set on the combination of officers. Additionally, looking at the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the Visa Case, where the impugned decision was passed by a contractual staff, the Court categorically remanded the matter back to the Trademark Registry “to consider it afresh”. So now the question comes up whether such quick fix methods can be deemed as considering the application afresh? Or would this mechanism be amenable to perhaps a writ challenge? Lastly, one can hope that this is perhaps not the only solution to this controversy and rather the authorities investigate the issue thoroughly, as suggested by Sabeeh in his post here, for sake of accountability.