M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of direction in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned common order (No.113 and 114 of 2013) dated 03.06.2013 in OA/33-35/2009/TM/CH and in OA/70-82/2008/TM/CH passed by the 5th Respondent and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 6th Respondent/Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai to proceed with the registration of the impugned Application No.540605 and other 29 applications [mentioned in the Writ Petition] in class 03 for the trademarks “THREE IN ONE”.

2. Resume of Germane Writ Facts:

(i) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing incense sticks (Agarbathi) and dhoop sticks for more than 20 years. In the course of business, it had honestly conceived and adopted the trademark ‘Cycle Brand’ for their products mentioned ever since their inception in the early 1950’s. Also, the Petitioner have garnered immense reputation built brick by brick by their Forefathers.

(ii) The Petitioner’s products are available all over India and abroad and as such, it had attained international reputation. The trade mark of ‘Cycle Brand’ of the Petitioner is one of the most widely recognised Trademarks in the field of Agarbathies and Dhoop sticks.

(iii) The Petitioner had honestly conceived and adopted the trademark “THREE IN ONE” and started using the same from 03.07.1981. Because of their continuous and extensive use of the trademarks ‘Cycle Brand’ and “THREE IN ONE” in all their products, they are exclusively associated with the Petitioner alone and no one else. Indeed, the Petitioner had applied for and registered more than 100 trademarks including ‘Cycle Brand’ with the device of Cycle, and ‘Cycle Brand Three in One’ in India and abroad. The aforestated trademarks ‘Cycle Brand’ and ‘Cycle Brand Three in One’ were registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act.

(iv) A substantial reputation and a valuable goodwill had accrued to the Petitioner and the Trademark has become extremely popular in the markets in India and abroad. Moreover, the consumers identify the trademark ‘“THREE IN ONE” with the Petitioner and not with others.

(v) The Petitioner had applied for trademark “THREE IN ONE” as a Label Mark and secured Registration bearing No.426521 in respect of Agarbathis, after due advertisement in the Trademarks Journal No.971 dated 16.11.1989. The said trademark was renewed from time to time and the same is valid.

(vi) The Petitioner had applied for the impugned trademark “THREE IN ONE” per se in the following undermentioned languages:

1. No.540598 in Hindi

2. No.540599 in Assamese

3. No.540600 in Kannada

4. No.540601 in Tamil

5. No.540602 in Bengali

6. No.540603 in Urudu

7. No.540604 in Punjabi

8. No.540605 in Telugu

9. No.540606 in Malayalam

10. NO.540607 in Marathi

11. No.540608 in Oriya

12. No.540609 in Gujarathi and

13. No.544494 in English

Claiming user from 01.02.1991. The Respondents 1 to 4 had opposed all the Applications and the 6th Respondent/Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai had dismissed all the Oppositions and allowed the Applications.

(vii) Being aggrieved against with the order passed by the 6th Respondent/Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai, the Respondents preferred Appeal before the 5th Respondent/Intellectual Property Appellate Board by taking a plea that the impugned mark is the descriptive of the goods in that the term ‘THREE IN ONE’ has been used by numerous traders in the Industry (including the Respondents) to indicate that there are three different flavours in one incense packet (Agarbathi) and that no solo trader ought to be given the monopoly over the aforestated term.

(viii) Apart from that, the Respondents in their Appeal had also averred that in an erstwhile Application for Rectification filed by the 4th Respondent/M/s.Shalimar Agarbathies before the 5th Respondent/Appellate Board had admitted that the Petitioner’s trademark is ‘Cy