M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd Respondent/Appellate Board dated 09.03.2012 in ORA/7/2010/TM/CH and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has also sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 3rd Respondent/Registrar of Trade Marks not to cancel/Re-enter Trade Mark Registration No.1317858 in Class 36 for the trade mark/label WAI WEALTHADVISORS from/in the Register of Trade Marks.

Summation of Facts:

2. According to the Petitioner, it is an Independent Investment Advisory Firm promoted by JV Gokal Group [a leading export house in India] founded in the year 1952, with an annual turnover of Rs.1000 Crores and net worth of Rs.300 Crores. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner is promoted by a team of professionals with more than two decades of experience in the Financial Services Industry. Moreover, the Petitioner’s products and service lines include (i) Mutual Funds, (ii) Insurance, (iii) Equity, (iv) Fixed Income, (v) Investment Tax Advisory, and (vi) Will & Trust services.

3. The stand of the Petitioner is that it had honestly adopted the mark “WEALTHADVISORS” and “Logo” for its financial services in May 2004 and had continuously, widely and extensively used the mark in respect of the said services and had earned extensive reputation and goodwill among the trade and public. That apart, it had extensively and widely advertised the products and services under the mark “WEALTHADVISORS” and “Logo” throughout India on print and electronic media. The said Petitioner’s mark and Logo has become distinctive and capable of differentiating the services rendered by it.

4. It is the plea of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent had filed a Rectification Petition in the year 2009 before the 2nd Respondent for removal of the Petitioner’s registered mark as “WEALTHADVISORS” (Logo) bearing No.1317858 in Class 36 and in fact, the said petition was filed only to harass it. Also, it is the stand of the Petitioner that there was no proper explanation on the part of the 1st Respondent in not taking timely action to file any opposition when the stage was set open for the very same purpose.

5. Moreover, it is projected on the side of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent was well aware of the Petitioner’s trade mark and its widespread use of the same and only in a deliberate manner, the 1st Respondent had filed the Rectification Application after the Petitioner had built a good and profitable business over the years.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a plea that the Petitioner is a prior and a bona fide user of the registered trade mark, using it from the year 2004 for its services. Further, the 1st Respondent had adopted the mark ‘CITI WEALTH ADVISORS’ as a subsequent user which was admitted by the 1st Respondent in its pleadings before the 2nd Respondent/Intellectual Property Appellate Board to the effect that ‘CITI WEALTH ADVISORS (CWA) had recently launched its ‘Business’ in India.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the Petitioner is using the registered trade mark ‘WEALTHADVISORS’ for over eight years and as such, the mark had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning among the trade and public.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contends that the Petitioner has not received a certificate of registration for trademark ‘WEALTHADVISORS’ under No.1317858 in Class 36 and in the instant case, there was no contravention or failure to observe any condition entered on the Register. In reality, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 can be pressed into service by an aggrieved person on the ground of absence or omission from the Register of any entry or by any entry in the ‘Register’ without sufficient cause or by an entry wrongly remaining in