ORDER

% 18.01.2023

1.Present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [hereinafter ‘ the Act ’] impugns order dated 28th April, 2022, issued by Respondent No. 2 [Deputy Registrar of Trademarks] [hereinafter ‘ Impugned Order ’], whereby Respondent No. 1’s request under Rule 34 of the Trade Mark Rules 2017 [hereinafter ‘ 2017 Rules ’], for expediting registration process for application No. 3544623 for the mark “HUDSON”, has been allowed.

2.Before adverting to the grounds of appeal, it is important to mention that following the impugned order, on 10th August, 2022, registration process has been finalised with registration of the mark in Respondent No. 1’s name. Appellant has also has also impugned said registration in a separate rectification petition under Section 57 of the Act, stated to be pending before this Court.

3.Be that as it may, the Court is of the opinion that present appeal is misconceived and infructuous for following reasons, which shall be discussed hereinafter: (i) registration process has attained finality, (ii) Impugned Order, being interlocutory in nature, merely expedited the registration process, and (iii) the reasoning in the Impugned Order is reasonable and in consonance with the Act. Therefore, the Impugned Order warrants no interference.

4.Ms. Lakshimi Devi Somnath, counsel for Appellant, argues that the Impugned Order should be set-aside as Respondent No. 2 unlawfully accelerated the proceedings without any valid reason, and in violation of the statutory provisions. She argues that Rule 34 of the 2017 Rules does not enable Respondent No. 2 to speed-up the registration process that had already reached the final stage. The afore-noted provision can be invoked only after receipt of application number, and prior to examination of the application. This, Ms. Somnath emphasises is evident from the expression “Thereafter” appearing in the aforesaid Rule, which in common parlance connotes ‘only after’ – a condition precedent. The intent to permit filing of application for expedited processing at any stage is not expressly mentioned in the provision. Reference is also made to the expression “shall also” in said Rule which indicates that all post examination procedures are to be dealt expeditiously as an addendum to expedited examination procedure, and not on a standalone basis. If application under Rule 34 is not made before examination, the question of expediting various stages of examination such as the report, scheduling of show cause hearing, publication etc. (mentioned in the provision) will not arise thereby proving that the Rule allows for applications to be entertained only prior to examination.

5.The Court has considered the aforenoted submissions. Rule 34 of the 2017 Rules, around which the arguments pivot, reads as under:

“34. Expedited Processing of Application - (1) The applicant may, after the receipt of the official number of the application, request for expedited processing of application made for the registration of a trademark in Form TM-M on payment of fee as specified in First Schedule. Such an application shall be examined expeditiously and ordinarily within three months from the date of submission of the application. Thereafter, the following proceedings viz. the consideration of response to the examination report, scheduling of show cause hearing, if required, the publication of the application and the opposition thereto, if any, till final disposal of the application shall also be dealt with expeditiously subject to such guidelines as may be published in this regard by the Registrar in the trademarks Journal.

(2) The Registrar may limit the number of applications for expedited processing of trademark applications by publishing the same in the trademarks Journal.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

6.On a plain reading, the above provision provides an opportunity to all registrants to apply for expedited processing of application after receipt of an official number from the Registry. When