Introduction:This case highlights serious procedural lapses in the functioning of the Trade Marks Registry and the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Kamdhenu Limited, approached the High Court through five writ petitions, challenging the perfunctory and irregular acceptance of certain trademark applications that had allegedly ignored the petitioner’s prior rights and bypassed the statutory mandates under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Mark Rules, 2017. The Court, in an unprecedented move, exercised its suo motu jurisdiction to rectify administrative irregularities that had broader implications on public confidence in the trademark registration system.
Factual Background:Kamdhenu Limited is a well-established entity with several registered trademarks to its name. The dispute arose when five trademark applications—bearing application numbers 6890699, 6845025, 6845771, 6890704, and 6742246—were hastily accepted by the Trade Marks Registry on the same date they were filed. The petitioner discovered that these applications were processed and accepted within minutes without proper examination, and shockingly, without reference to the petitioner’s prior existing trademarks, despite their valid registration status.
A glaring omission in the search reports generated by the Registry was that 16 of the petitioner’s valid trademarks were not reflected, raising concerns of non-compliance with Rule 33 of the Trade Mark Rules and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. These circumstances suggested a breakdown in due diligence and adherence to statutory obligations by the Registry and its officers.
Procedural Background:The matter first came up before the High Court on 9th May 2025, when the Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the records and explanations furnished by the Registry. The Court found the omissions in the search reports troubling and called upon the relevant officers—Examiners of Trade Marks, as well as the Registrar—to appear and assist the Court. Subsequently, on 15th May 2025, the officers demonstrated the software and processes used to generate search reports. Following this, the Registrar of Trade Marks voluntarily submitted a short affidavit admitting procedural failures and stating that administrative action had been initiated against the concerned Examiners. The Registrar also offered to withdraw the earlier acceptance orders and undertake a fresh examination of the applications.
Legal Issue:The central legal issue was whether the acceptance of the five trademark applications by the Trade Marks Registry, in apparent disregard of prior existing marks and statutory procedures, could be sustained under law and whether the High Court could intervene under Article 226 in the absence of the petitioner having availed of alternate statutory remedies.
Discussion on Judgments:To support the writ petitions, the petitioner relied on Jai Bhagwan Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors., 2020:DHC:1532, where the Court emphasized the necessity for a reasoned order and clear application of mind by the Registrar while accepting a mark under Section 20(1) of the Act. It was held that such acceptance cannot be mechanical and must reflect proper scrutiny.
The petitioner also referred to Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Anr. vs. D. N. Bahari Trading, 2024:DHC:2868, where a Co-ordinate Bench held that compliance with Rule 33 of the Trade Mark Rules is mandatory. Though the respondent contested the relevance of this case by stating it related to a rectification petition and not a writ petition, the Court found the principles applicable given the similar factual matrix.
The respondents, particularly Respondent No. 4, cited T.K. Lathika Vs. Seth Karsandas Jamnadas, (1999) 6 SCC 632 to argue that the Court should not bypass the issue of maintainability and should allow opposition proceedings to take their course. They also relied on Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Anr. vs. Registrar of Trademarks & Ors., 2023:DHC:2066 to suggest that judicial restraint should be exercised where the statutory process is available.
However, the Court emphasized the exceptionality of the present facts and drew support from Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603, and State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499, to reaffirm the principle that the bar on writ jurisdiction in the face of alternate remedies is not absolute but a rule of prudence and policy.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The observed that the matter before the Court was not just about isolated errors, but a systemic administrative failure that shook the very integrity of the trademark registration process. The Court noted that the speed and uniformity with which the applications were processed and accepted on the same day, without due scrutiny, indicated a failure to comply with Rule 33 and Section 11 of the Act.
The Court also appreciated the Registrar's candid admission of error and swift initiation of departmental action. However, recognizing that such failures could have far-reaching consequences and erode public faith in the statutory regime, the Court felt compelled to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent further miscarriage of justice.
While acknowledging that the petitioner had not yet initiated opposition proceedings and that the time for doing so was still available, the Court found that the blatant procedural lapses warranted judicial intervention. The judge emphasized that the object was not to preempt statutory remedies but to correct a grave wrong that could affect the credibility of a public institution.
Final Decision:The Court disposed of the writ petitions by remanding all five trademark applications back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The Court directed the Registrar to give appropriate notice to all concerned parties and ensure that future proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Trade Marks Act and Rules. The Registry was also instructed to initiate necessary administrative steps as per the Court’s earlier orders.
Law Settled in This Case:This case reinforces the principle that High Courts can and should invoke their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when there is a demonstrable failure of statutory duties by public authorities, even if alternate remedies are available. It also affirms that the Trade Marks Registry must adhere strictly to Rule 33 of the Trade Mark Rules and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, and cannot mechanically process applications without a thorough examination. Administrative convenience or speed cannot override legal compliance and procedural fairness.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
