The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternative remedies provided by the Trade Marks Act before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the comprehensive and exhaustive provisions of the Act for challenging registrations and cautioned against seeking parallel remedies through writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a number of trademarks which essentially involve the word "AMUL", on its own as well as accompanied by prefixes and suffixes, both as word marks and device marks, in various classes of the NICE classification.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved at the fact that, despite the existence, and in derogation, of the proprietorial rights held by the petitioner in the said registered trade marks, several persons are applying for registration of marks which include "AMUL" and are, in the submission of the petitioner, deceptively similar to the trademarks in which the petitioner holds registrations.

3. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers:

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to withdraw the acceptance of trademarks identical with or deceptively similar to the Petitioners' "AMUL" trademarks which are at Sr No. 22 to 57 in the Table at Para 26.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus quashing the publication of the trademarks identical with or deceptively similar to the Petitioners' "AMUL" trademarks which are at Sr No. 22 to 57 in the Table at Para 26

(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to cancel the registration of Trademarks which are identical with or deceptively similar to the Petitioners' "AMUL" trademarks which are at Sr No. 1 to 21 in the Table at Para 26 and remove the entries of the same from the Register of Trademarks

(d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to pass a reasoned order before accepting or advertising trademarks identical with or deceptively similar to the Petitioners' "AMUL" trademarks

(e) Issue any other Writ/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts of the case."

4. Para 26 of the petition sets out, in a tabular statement, 57 registrations with which the petitioner is aggrieved. Of these 57 registrations, prayers (a) and (b) in the writ petition pertain to the 36 registrations at S. Nos. 22 to 57. These are all cases in which the applications, seeking registration of the trade mark concerned, were accepted, advertised, and oppositions invited. Of these 36 registrations, Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that oppositions, under Section 21¹ [21. Opposition to registration. - (1) Any person may, within four months from the date of the advertisement or re- advertisement of an application for registration, give notice in writing in the prescribed manner and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, to the Registrar, of opposition to the registration. (2) The Registrar shall serve a copy of the notice on the applicant for registration and, within two months from the receipt by the applicant of such copy of the notice of opposition, the applicant shall send to the Registrar in the prescribed manner a counter statement of the grounds on which he relies for his application, and if he does not do so he shall be deemed to have abandoned his application. (3) If the applicant sends such counter statement, the Registrar shall serve a copy thereof on the person giving notice of opposition. (4) Any evidence upon which the opponent and the applicant may rely shall be submitted in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time to the Registrar, and the Registrar shall give an opportunity to them to be heard, if they so desire. (5) The Registrar shall, after hearing the parties, if so required, and considering the evidence, decide whether and subject to what conditions or limitations, if any, the registration is to be permitted, and may take into account a ground of objection whether relied upon by the opponent or not.  (6) Where a person giving notice of opposition or an applicant sending a counter statement after receipt of a copy of such notice neither resi