HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17519/2025

Bhavesh Kumar Duggar S/o (Late) Sh. Kumar Pal Dugad

----Petitioner

Versus

The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bansal for

Mr. Ghanshyam Das Bansal

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Divya Modi

Ms. Anushka Khandelwal for

Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

09/12/2025

1. The present petition has been filed with the following

prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to:

a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1 (The Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad) to hear and decide the Opposition No.1000266 against the petitioner’s Trademark Application No.3462272 in an expeditious manner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified

copy of the order of this Hon’ble Court.

b) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall,

as in duty bound, ever pray.”

2. A bare perusal of the prayer reveals that it is only an expeditious disposal of the Trademark application filed by the petitioner before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad, which is being sought by the petitioner for the reason that the Trademark application was filed by him as back as on 19.01.2017, in which the pleadings along with the evidence stood completed way back in 15.08.2020 is yet to be adjudicated.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18998/2022 titled as Nirmala Kabra Vs. The Registrar Of Trade Marks and Another wherein dealing with a similar controversy, specific directions have been issued to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide all the pending applications expeditiously as early as possible in terms of Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:-

“8. It is quite shocking and surprising that in the present case, the application seeking registration has been lying pending for its adjudication since last more than one and half decade i.e. more than fifteen years and that is clear act of violation of the mandatory provisions contained under the Rule 50 of the Rules of2017. The Registrar of Trademarks is expected to follow the mandatory provisions contained under the Rules of 2017 in its letter and spirit and he cannot be allowed to sit over the matter for an indefinite period of time.

9. Excessive delays in resolving the applications seeking registration of Trademark indeed undermines the very purpose of filing such applications. When the matter is unnecessarily prolonged, it can lead to a number of negative consequences, including the loss of evidence and increased costs along with a sense of injustice to the parties involved.

When the applications drag on for an extended period without resolution, it can erode public confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the prescribed system.

Prolonged delays can be particularly harmful to parties who are seeking a resolution to their case, as it can keep them in a state of uncertainty and prevent them from moving forward with their lives and businesses. Excessive delays in disposal of the applications amounts to violation of principles of natural justice which requires that the statutory procedure should be conducted fairly and in a timely manner.

10. Trademark Registration Application cannot be allowed to remain pending for decades. The Registrar of Trademarks is not expected to keep these applications pending for an indefinite period and indefinite time. The respondent-Registrar is expected to decide the application in a reasonable time.

The right of speedy and expeditious disposal of these applications is one of the most valuable and cherished