The CGPDTM must maintain clear communication and adhere to procedural fairness while processing trademark oppositions, especially regarding limitation extensions during the pandemic.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. There are two aspects being considered in these matters.

i) The first relates to the review application filed on behalf of the officers of the CGPDTM seeking review of the order dated 21st March, 2022, by which Rs.1 lakh was imposed as costs on each of the officers for lapses in communicating incorrect facts to the Court.

ii) The second concerns the issue of a large number of pending oppositions, ripe for hearing, in the CGPDTM office.

3. Post the passing of the order dated 21st March, 2022, and filing of the review petition, this Court has heard the matters on 8th April, 2022, 11th April, 2022 and today. Mr. Shakti Dhar Ojha, Deputy Registrar, CGPDTM, Mumbai and two officers Mr. Sachin Sharma and Mr. Juneja - have joined the various hearings. Affidavits have also been filed by some of these officials, explaining the reasons why the Court was not informed that more than 7000 oppositions were filed and taken on record, beyond the period of limitation. While reading the affidavits, the impression that the Court gets is that there has been a clear lack of communication between the various officers in the CGPDTM and conflicting notices were issued in respect of acceptance of oppositions. It is also submitted by the officers that they were not in the CGPDTM in the capacity of hearing officers and were therefore unaware of any oppositions being accepted beyond the limitation period. Further, the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation concerning extension of limitation period in various matters during the pandemic, also do not seem to have been properly interpreted and understood by the office of CGPDTM.

4. Considering the affidavits dated 10th May, 2022 filed before this Court, and the explanation given by the officers, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify as under:

(1) That the lapse, which was attributed to the officials personally, shall be treated as an overall lapse of the office of CGPDTM and not of the said officials individually. The officials are cautioned that in the future it shall be ensured that the directions issued by the CGPTDM shall be issued in a clear and transparent manner, without ambiguities. Further, proper information shall be furnished to the Court whenever called upon.

(2) Insofar as the cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on each of the officers is concerned, the same shall stand. However, the ld. Controller General shall take a decision as to whether the said costs are to be deposited by the office as a whole or by any of the officers individually. The Court shall be informed of the said decision on the next date of hearing.

(3) Insofar as the cases where registration certificates had been issued and oppositions have now been filed pursuant to the order dated 21st March, 2022, the affidavit of Mr. Prithpal Kaur Sidhu dated 10th May, 2022 has set out the procedure, which would be followed by the office of the CGPDTM, as under:

"13. It is submitted that as far as procedure related to cancellation/recall of the registration certificates of the application where registration certificates have been issued but oppositions have been received or may be filed by 30/05/2022 is concerned, the office has adopted the following procedure:

a. As directed, wherever opposition is received, registration certificate is suspended and opposition petition is taken on record and the status of the application is reflected as opposed on e-Register.

b. The processing the opposition petition will be proceeded as per provision of the law as stated u/s 21 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with rule 44-50 of Tra