ORDER

% 17.01.2023 1. This appeal assails order dated 22nd June 2020, whereby the learned Senior Examiner of Trade Marks has rejected the Application No. 2833066, of the appellant, seeking registration of the trade mark “” for “broadcasting services through various modes and means including and not limited to radio, television, wireless and telecommunication”, on the ground that it lacked distinctive character as it was a combination of common dictionary words and was descriptive of the nature of the services being provided under the mark.

2. Mr. Manish Dhir, learned Counsel for the appellant, has drawn my attention to the fact that identical marks, for similar services provided for other States such as, and stand registered by the same Registrar of Trade Marks.

3. In the circumstances, Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondent, fairly leaves the matter to the court.

4. It is trite that no judicial authority can take contrary views in identical cases. One may refer, in this context, to the following passage of the judgment of Justice K.S. Radhakrishan, as he then was, sitting singly as a Judge of High Court of Kerala in Joy v. Regional Transport Authority 1 :

“3. Judicial discipline demands consistency in rendering judgments. A Judicial Officer may hold different views on various aspects. A Judicial Officer may err and pass contradictory orders inadvertently. But once it is brought to the knowledge of the Judicial Officer, he is duty bound to keep track of consistency.

Inconsistent orders passed by a judicial officer almost in the same fact situation, and that too on the same day, would give rise to complaint of discriminatory treatment, which will undermine the people's faith in judicial system and the rule of law. It will cause resentment and anguish and make an imprint in the mind of the litigant that he has been discriminated. A Judicial Officer may err and pass illegal orders, but he shall not err in consistency. He should be consistent even in illegality.”

5. In view of the aforesaid, as identical marks, with respect to similar services being provided in other States, stand registered by the learned Registrar, the impugned order cannot sustain. It is, accordingly, set aside.

6. Application No. 2833066 filed by the appellant for registration

1 1998 SCC OnLine Ker 344

7. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. C. HARI SHANKAR, J. JANUARY 17, 2023 dsn