The court mandates that trademark applications must be examined rigorously before any advertisement, emphasizing that indiscriminate advertising undermines the integrity of registered marks and imposes undue costs on applicants.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Shri Jai Bhagwan Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Bhagwan Kirana Company, against the Registrar of Trademarks and Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. The Petitioner has used the trademark "JEERA PUJARI" in respect of jeera and sauff since 1980. The Petitioner also has registration for "JEERA PUJARI" word mark since 1987 bearing no.472153. The said mark has been duly renewed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also has a second trademark bearing no.631107 for "JAI PUJARI BRAND" label.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the Petitioner having registered the trademarks for "JEERA PUJARI" word mark and "JAI PUJARI BRAND" label mark, the Registrar of Trademarks is advertising various trademarks consisting of the word "PUJARI" in respect of identical goods falling in Class 30. It is, thus, submitted that though the Petitioner has filed oppositions in respect of these marks, the same has become a burden upon the Petitioner who is saddled with costs for oppositions and for keeping a watch on the trademark journal. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned publication of the trademarks of respondent no. 4 and 5 published in the trade mark journals being ANNEXURES P-4 & 5 as illegal and unconstitutional and proceedings taken towards its registration;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents no. 1 and 2 to perform the-official functions in consonance with provisions of law and principles of natural justice and further to desist from publishing trademarks identical with or deceptively similar to petitioner's trade marks in trade mark journals without following due procedures and provisions of law as envisaged under the TRADE MARKS ACT and Rules there under;"

3. The submission of Mr. Bansal, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Trademark Registry ought to be examining trademark applications in a proper and efficient manner, so as to ensure that even marks which are identical to registered trademarks, are not cleared for advertisement, which in turn, increases the burden upon the applicants and their attorneys. It is his submission that the registered trademark of the Petitioner consists of the word mark "PUJARI" for spices in Class 30 and in the same Class, similar word marks are being permitted to be advertised for registration. He submits that the stand of the Registrar of the Trademarks is merely that the Petitioner ought to exercise the statutory remedy and nothing more. Reliance is placed upon Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter `the Act').

4. Mr. Vishal Mittal, ld. Senior Panel Counsel, appearing for the Registrar of Trademarks submits that there are two applications against which the Petitioner has raised grievance i.e. trademark application bearing no.1188208 already stands abandoned and the second application bearing no.1285292 is pending for registration and the Petitioner has already opposed the said mark. The Petitioner, thus, having availed the statutory remedy, is not entitled to seek any relief by way of the present petition.

5. This Court has perused the record and heard ld. counsels for the parties. The obligation of the Registrar of Trademarks whenever a new trade mark application is filed, would be to examine the application in terms of Sections 9 & 11 of the Act, as well as the other relevant provisions in order to see if there are any grounds, which are attracted in respect of the said application. Section 9 of the