DPIIT, in a notification dated 27th August 2024, appointed Subhash Chandra Karol, Director of the DPIIT, as the Head of the IT office of the CGPDTM. It is not clear what has triggered this change. However, the notification comes close on the heels of a writ petition filed by the AIPOWA in the Delhi High Court (here), which alleges “arbitrary reallocation, withdrawal, and abandonment of patent applications and review petitions” by the Information Technology (IT) Division of the CGPDTM. The writ highlights instances where matters were withdrawn and reallocated by the IT Division citing efficiency issues, without a reasoned order of the Controller under Section 73(4) of the Patents Act. Additionally, it is alleged in the writ, that there are instances where the IT Division would revive a refused application even when no review petition was filed, or reallocated pending and review application to other officers on the directions of the CGPDTM. Whether the above developments are interconnected or not is difficult to tell at this point.
As reported here by Indian Express, an anonymous DPIIT official rejected the claim that Mr Karol’s appointment was prompted due to the allegations raised in the writ petition. Rather, the official is reported to have said, the appointment is aimed at ‘upgrading and modernising’ the IT infrastructure of the Patent Office which had become old. In Filo Edtech Inc vs Union Of India, the CGPDTM had submitted that matters in the Patent Office are allotted through an automated system without any human intervention. Nevertheless, any reallocation 73(4) requires reasoned order, which, believe it or not, requires human intervention.
Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the CGPDTM has been in the spotlight for the past few months and that too for all the wrong reasons. Readers of the blog will remember a recent post by Sabeeh, where he pointed out that “close to two years of TM applications examinations” will have to be re-examined since they were assigned to contracted employees rather than trademark examiners. Praharsh had then written here on the CGPDTM notification, which laid out the mechanism for re-validation of all the TM orders passed in the last couple of years.
In another instance, it was reported here, that a committee, set up by the Union Commerce and Industry Ministry, had indicted Dr Unnat P Pandit for ‘administrative lapses.’ However, Dr Pandit, in this LinkedIn post, denied the allegations as “False facts without merit.” The Hindu BusinessLine later reported (here) that DPIIT had said his “position will be examined and further action will be taken accordingly”. However, I could not find any official communication in this regard.
Moreover, this is not the first time AIPOWA has raised serious issues concerning the CGPDTM. Reportedly, the AIPOWA has filed another writ petition in the DHC, this time challenging the appointment of Mr Unnat P. Pandit as the head of the CGPDTM, alleging lack of experience and Annual Confidential reports (Background here) which were required under the DoPT letter for the post. (the writ can be seen here) In the past, the AIPOWA had challenged, before Central Administrative Tribunal and DPIIT, the issuance of 259 show-cause notices by the CGPDTM to different officers of the Indian Patent Office. As Praharsh writes here, the Ministry of Commerce subsequently stepped in and withdrew the show cause notices against such officers.
Looking at the Larger Picture
There is a larger context within which the above developments need to be placed. For the past 16-18 months, there have been repeated instances where the Court has reprimanded Patent officers for writing incomprehensible judgements (here), deliberately concealing facts (here) or lack of reasoning in orders passed by the Controller (here). Therefore, the recent issue of orders being passed by contractual employees cannot be seen as a one-off instance. (In fact, even the solution of re-verifying – while well intended – raises another set of complex questions as to what in the Act allows for this ‘re-verification’ process – perhaps a question for another post) That the DPIIT has decided to take over the day-to-day management of a particular division of the CGPDTM, which in and of itself is a separate division, indicates a the need for a deeper look at all of these questions.
Speaking of IT departments – at present, the issue of the Trademark Website malfunctioning or acting up on occasion also needs to be discussed (I personally had to deal with it two days ago!). Although it is unclear whether the task of operating the TM website falls with the IT Division of the CGPDTM or a private entity (which brings a host of other problems itself), it is time for the DPIIT, which has taken over the division, to start figuring this out as well.
In light of the above, giving additional charge of the IT Division to the DPIIT’s head indicates that all is not well at the CGPDTM. If the news reports are to be believed, a complete overhaul of the CGPDTM is required. Although one can argue that the above allegations are yet to be proved and decided by the Courts, the above scenario reminds me of the phrase- “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” One can only hope that the CGPDTM douses this fire as soon as possible.
If the readers come across any other information, please do share it in the comments!
[A huge thank you to two anonymous readers for their input]