In Tiger Foods Ingredients (P) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Madras HC was hearing a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the Trademark Registry to expeditiously dispose of a name-change application (Form TM P). In this case, the application was filed on 05.07.2024 whereas the writ petition before the Court was filed on 11.08.2024.
Interestingly, the writ petition was filed even without applying for expeditious consideration before the registry. The Court also noted that the petitioner, showing undue haste, had rushed to the Court without waiting for a reasonable time for disposal of the application. Nevertheless, the Court, noting it was just and necessary to dispose of the application expeditiously, issued a mandamus to the Registry to dispose of the application within six weeks from the date of the order.
The Judgement, seen in isolation, reveals nothing extraordinary. If anything, the reader might blame the applicant for showing undue haste in approaching the Court without either exhausting the remedy available or waiting for a reasonable time. However, one must read this order as part of a wider systemic problems occurring in the CGPDTM.
As I detailed here, CGPDTM has been in the spotlight for the past couple of years. From invalidation of TM application orders passed in the last two years to a writ petition being filed against the registry for administrative lapses. Apart from allegations being raised against the leadership, there have been instances where Courts have reprimanded the registry officers for gross failure in fulfilling their duties, including giving out complete and reasoned orders. (here, here and here)
In Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. CGPDTM, the Court noted the concerning trend of the large number of oppositions remaining pending with the office (approximately 2 lakhs at the time). The Court attributed this delay to the lack of officials in the office. Accordingly, it ordered the CGPDTM to file before the Court how it intended to deal with the pending applications and year-wise chart of applications which were ripe for hearing.
Although I do not have access to the submission made by CGPDTM to the DHC on the issue, I think one can hazard a calculated guess as to what mechanism CGPDTM had in mind to deal with the pendency of these applications. The outsourcing of TM applications to employees of the Quality Council of India was supposed to compensate for the lack of manpower at the Office. Now that this wonderful idea has been junked (not to mention the mechanism to revalidate the orders is any less wonderful!), it would be interesting to see what CGPDTM comes up with this time. The blog has covered the issue of lack of technical manpower at the CGPDTM previously. (here) In the past, as noted here, to make up for the lack of manpower, the officers were passing poorly reasoned orders to dispose of as many applications as possible within a specific timeframe. Surely, as much as speedy disposal of applications and oppositions is required, it is equally important that the orders are well-reasoned – another area that the courts have called out over several orders. (here, here, here and here)
These issues with the Office have not arisen only in the last couple of years but have stuck with it throughout. For instance, in 2008, the Justice Allah Raham committee report raised the issue of a lack of sufficient manpower in the Office to cope with the exponentially increasing pendency of patent applications. Also, this post from 2014 highlights the decision in Nitto Denko v. UOI where the Court raised concerns against inordinate delay in processing of patent applications (especially FER) and appointed a committee to address the issue (also see here). The Committee report suggested a 12-step framework to expedite the disposal of patent applications. (Readers can tell us in the comments whether this framework can be a solution or not).
Prashant had earlier written a post where he had praised Mr. P.H. Kurian (erstwhile Controller General 2009-11) for increased transparency, streamlining procedure for grant of TM and patent, and hiring good quality examiners to meet the resource crunch at CGPDTM.
The issue of delay in the CGPDTM is not a novel one. This issue has persisted for at least a decade (or even before then). A delay in processing the applications, as the Court noted here, indicates arbitrariness and whimsical decision-making. The institutional failure of the CGPDTM, that too at the systemic level for such a long period, indicates the need for systemic reform. A slap on the wrist won’t do- what is needed is a sea change at the institutional level.
[Hat tip to Mr. K. Muthu Selvam for sharing this development with us]