JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, Petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari quashing the advertisement with respect to application No.731808, in Class 5, filed by Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd./Respondent No.3 herein for registration of trademark LAXMAN REKHA (label) and a further direction to the concerned Registrar of Trade Marks to re-advertise the application.

2. Factual narrative to the extent necessary and relevant for the present writ petition is that Respondent No.3 filed an application on 29.01.1997, for registration of trademark LAXMAN REKHA (label). Respondent No.3 also filed a suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off, delivery etc. against the Petitioner herein, in respect of trademark LAXMAN REKHA. Learned Single Judge of this Court granted injunction against the Petitioner vide order dated 31.07.2001. In an Appeal before the Division Bench, the injunction order was vacated vide order dated 20.09.2001, however, in Civil Appeal No. 107/2002, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 22.01.2004, set aside the order of the Division Bench and restored the order granting injunction. The suit was transferred to the District Courts on account of pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. Before the learned Trial Court, Respondent No.3 preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in the year 2006, seeking amendment of the plaint and along with the application filed copy of the registration certificate, whereby Respondent No.3’s trademark/label LAXMAN REKHA was registered in Class 5.

4. It is averred in the writ petition that from the Registration Certificate, Petitioner learnt that the application for registration was advertised in Trade Marks Journal MEGA-1 on 25.08.2003. Petitioner thereafter contacted its lawyers, who on inquiry found that the trademark (label) of Respondent No.3 was advertised, but was totally black and illegible. Petitioner then approached the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Registrar’) vide letter dated 09.02.2004 and requested him to re-advertise the mark, on the ground that the mark advertised on page 618, was not clearly visible and also enclosed photocopy of the relevant page for ready reference. This was followed by reminder letters dated 01.11.2006, 24.11.2006, 26.11.2006, 25.01.2007 etc., whereby Petitioner requested the Registrar to take action under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), more so, in larger public interest. Finally, a legal notice dated 10.06.2008 was sent to Respondent No.2 seeking redressal of the grievance relating to the illegible advertisement. Receiving no response, Petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

5. On 13.08.2008, notice was issued to the Respondents in the writ petition, but the stay application seeking stay of operation of the registration granted in favour of Respondent No.3 was dismissed as not pressed at that stage.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has sought quashing of the advertisement on many-fold grounds. It is contended that the Registrar failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act, which empowers the Registrar to re-advertise the trademark application, after remedying the flaws or errors in the advertisement.

7. It was contended that the Registrar failed to appreciate the purpose and purport of advertising the application, which is to inform the world at large that an application has been filed seeking registration of a trademark. It is the obligation of the Registrar of Trade Marks to maintain a Register of Trade Marks under Section 6 of the Act. If there is an error in the advertisement and the same is not rectified by the Registrar, it would result in an impure entry in the Register. The Registrar took no action to re-advertise the trademark, despite the Petitioner pointing out that the advertisement was illegible.

8. It was next contended by Mr. Bhatia that the Registrar failed to