Procedural inefficiencies in trademark registration and renewal processes can lead to abandonment, necessitating streamlined practices for effective administration.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

CM APPL. 46494/2019 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11284/2019 & CM APPL. 46493/2019

2. Further to the last order wherein the Trade Marks Registry was called upon to explain the uploading of the O-3 notice as RG-3 notice, the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks - Ms. Shikha Dewan and Mr. Hemant Kumar from the Legal Section of the Trade Marks Registry are present in Court. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, ld. counsel, has also handed over an affidavit of Ms. Dewan, which is extracted below:

"....

4. That as per record of the Trade Marks Registry, the Trade Mark no.586576 in class 9 was due for renewal on 11.12.2016. The O-3 notice with a fee of Rs.5000/- was generated for the said Trade Mark on 05.09.2016 and was dispatched by the office to the address of the registered proprietor on record i.e. C-20 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 vide dispatch no.9796 dated 12.09.2016 through speed post. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent do not retain copies of the notices sent as it is computer generated form. However, the receipt is duly recorded and maintained. A copy of the relevant portion of the Dispatch Register is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A.

5. That Trade Marks Rules, 2017 came into force w.e.f. 06th March, 2017 whereby the forms and fees were changed and revised. As per the 2017 rules, the erstwhile form O-3 notice was then changed to form RG-3 notice and the fees was changed from Rs.5000/- to Rs.1,0000/- (physical filing).

6. That I do not have any personal knowledge, as to why the O-3 notice dispatched on 12.09.2016 in Trade Mark no.586576 is being reflected in the website as RG-3 notice (with amended fee) which came into effect only from 06.03.2017.

7. That after discussions with the IT development team of NIC, which manages the automation of systems for Trade Marks Registry Office, it has come to my knowledge that since the forms and notices of TMR office were changed after the implementation of the 2017 rules, the necessary modifications were made in the Trade Marks System as well as in the website of the CGPDTM. Under these changed circumstances, the format of O-3 notice was also changed as RG-3 notice and fee for renewal was changed from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. It also transpired after discussions with the IT officials that due to technical errors, some of the O-3 notices issued by the office even before 06.03.2017 were shown in the form of RG-3 notice asking renewal fee of Rs.10,000/- per class as per the new Trade Marks Rules 2017, on the `outgoing correspondences'. However, the physical copies which were sent to the concerned proprietor's registered offices remained in the proper format.

8. That after discussions, it has also been communicated by the IT department that the error reflecting in the website has now been rectified. A copy of the statement of the concerned Technical Director, NIC, Govt Of India is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-B.

9. That the O-3 notice in the present case was dispatched to the address available with the Respondent's office at the relevant time i.e. C-20 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016. It is submitted that the Petitioner had filed a TM Form 34 for change of his address on 24.04.2007. However, the said Form 34 has been allowed only on 28.09.2017 and accordingly the address of the Petitioner was updated to: A/5, Haridwar Apartment, 3, Kush Kumar Road, Chennai-600034, Tamil Nadu. In view thereof, the O-3 notice dated 05.09.2016 was dispatched to the earlier address available with the Respondent in the relevant year of 2016.

10. That in view of the delay that had occurred in processing the TM Form 34 of the Petitioner, the Res