Trademark applications cannot be refused based on objections that are unsubstantiated, particularly when prior permissions exist and are not recorded by the Registrar.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed challenging order dated 19th March, 2019 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and the Statement of Grounds of Decision under Rule 36(1) of the Trademark Rules, 2017 issued by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi on 14th July, 2020.

3. The brief background of the present appeal is that the Appellant filed a Trademark Application bearing No.1522447 in Class-17, for the impugned mark depicted below:

4. The trademark set out above was applied for, by the Plaintiff, in respect of goods falling under Class-17 which are as under:

"Designation of Goods:

5. Vide order dated 5th December, 2016 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, the mark was abandoned. The said order reads as under:

"None appeared at the time of Hearing held on the above-said date, hence the above-said application is ordered as abandoned in lack of prosecution as per the provisions of Trade Marks Act and Rules."

6. On 26th April, 2018, a review was filed against the above order dated 5th December, 2016, pursuant to which an order was passed on 19th March, 2019. In the said order, the Registrar of Trademarks has held as under:

"Present ADV APOORVA KAUR APPEARED SEC 9/11 OBJECTION HENCE REFUSED. THE MARK IS PROHIBITED.OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 9(2) D OF THE ACT. Advocate of M/s. INDIAN TRADE MARKS CO. for the petitioner

ORDER

An application for registration of trade mark consisting of word " JINDAL (DEVICE OF INDIA MAP)" was filed by the aforesaid Applicant under application No 1522447 in respect of applied goods included in Class -17. The application was examined and examination report containing the objections to the acceptance of application for registration of trade mark was communicated to the Applicant. On the request of the Applicant, a hearing was fixed in this matter. Eventually on 02 November 2016, the application came up before me for hearing and the order was passed accordingly.

The present petition on form TM-M has been filed for review of the order dated 05 December 2016.

ADV APOORVA KAUR APPEARED SEC 9/11 OBJECTION HENCE REFUSED. THE MARK IS PROHIBITED.OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 9(2) D OF THE ACT.

7. Thereafter, the Appellant asked for Grounds of Decision under Rule 36(1) of the Trademark Rules, 2017. The said Grounds of Decision were provided on 14th July, 2020, to the following effect:

"Statement of Grounds of decision under Rule 36(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

Gentleman/Madam,

With reference to the above and request on Form TM-M dated 10/09/2019. It has been decided by the Registrar of Trade Marks to Inform you that hearing in respect of above application was held on 06/06/2018 10:26:31 and the said application is refused on the following Grounds;

* ADV APOORVA KAUR APPEARED SEC 9/11 OBJECTION HENCE REFUSED. THE MARK IS PROHIBITED.OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 9(2) D OF THE ACT.

* 9(2)(d) - The trade mark:-Its use is prohibited under the Emblems and Name(Prevention of Improper Use) Ac