A quasi-judicial order must be a speaking order containing clear reasons and addressing the parties' submissions; a cryptic, non-speaking order is legally flawed and liable to be set aside.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this Civil Appeal under Section 91 of the Trademark Act, 2019 , the appellant has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 8.12.2022 passed by the learned Assistant Registrar of Trademarks in Trademark Application No.5286906. By the said order, the learned Assistant Registrar of Trademarks has rejected the application under Section 18 of the Trademark Act, 2019 preferred by the appellant for registration of device mark.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Harshit Tolia with learned advocate Mr.Luv Shah for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for the respondent.

3. Considering the impugned order, the said order, as it appears, is a cryptic order. The learned Assistant Registrar of Trademarks, while dealing with the application under Section 18 of the Trademark Act, 2019 , has not passed a reasoned order. It is a settled proposition of law that the reasons are most relevant portion of any order. It appears that the learned Assistant Registrar of Trademarks has also not referred the submissions those were made and also not dealt with the same.

4. In my considered opinion, the impugned order is viced being non-speaking order. Thus, this Court, instead of going further on merits, only on the ground of non-speaking order, is inclined to accept the Appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

5. Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed. The order impugned is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings arising from Trademark Application No.5286906 is hereby ordered to be restored to its original file.

6. Needless to clarify that the learned Assistant Registrar of Trademarks shall decide the proceedings afresh in accordance with law and in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

7. Needless to further clarify that while deciding the proceedings afresh, the appellant is at liberty to file additional documents for consideration, showing the subsequent developments. The same also to be taken into consideration by the learned Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. Consequently, the Civil Application No.2 of 2023 also stands disposed of.