### Introduction
This case delves into the procedural intricacies of trademark registration under Indian law, examining the scope for third-party intervention prior to the advertisement of a trademark application. It highlights the boundaries of the Registrar of Trade Marks' discretion in handling interlocutory petitions alleging fabrication of user claims and underscores the statutory framework that prioritizes post-advertisement oppositions over pre-emptive challenges. The judgment clarifies the absence of a mandatory hearing for objectors at the examination stage, reinforcing the structured process outlined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to ensure efficiency while protecting applicants' rights. By dismissing the writ petition, the court emphasizes balancing procedural fairness with statutory compliance, offering guidance on when and how third parties can effectively contest trademark applications without disrupting the registration pipeline.
### Factual Background
The first respondent, Sabu Trade Private Ltd., submitted a trademark application for the word mark "SACHAMOTI" on January 22, 2020, claiming usage by itself or its predecessor-in-title since April 1, 1984, in classes 30, 35, and 39. An examination report was issued by the Registrar on February 18, 2020, to which the applicant responded the following day. The petitioner, Rajkumar Sabu, lodged an interlocutory petition on July 20, 2021, asserting that the claimed user date was based on fabricated documents, urging the Registrar not to proceed with the application or advertise it in the Trade Marks Journal, and requesting a hearing. Despite paying the requisite fee of Rs. 2,700, no response was received to this petition. The application was accepted on February 25, 2025, and advertised in Trade Marks Journal Number 2199 on March 10, 2025. Seeking clarity, the petitioner filed a request under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on April 21, 2025, specifically asking for the document supporting the user date of April 1, 1984, but the reply on June 4, 2025, merely stated that all available documents were uploaded on the IP India portal, providing no substantive details.
### Procedural Background
The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition for certiorari to quash the acceptance report dated February 25, 2025, and the advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal dated March 10, 2025. The petition contended that the Registrar failed to consider the interlocutory petition and provide a hearing, violating principles of natural justice and the powers under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The matter was heard before a single judge, with arguments from the petitioner's counsel emphasizing the need for pre-advertisement scrutiny, the first respondent's counsel defending the statutory procedure and the availability of opposition post-advertisement, and the second respondent represented by a Deputy Solicitor General. No interim relief was sought or granted in the connected miscellaneous petition, and the court proceeded to decide the writ on merits after considering the statutory provisions and rules.
### Core Dispute
The central issue revolved around whether the Registrar of Trade Marks was obligated to consider the petitioner's interlocutory petition alleging fabrication of the user claim and to afford a hearing before accepting and advertising the trademark application. The petitioner argued that the Registrar's failure to act on the petition and exercise powers under Section 19 to withdraw acceptance amounted to a miscarriage of justice, especially given the payment of fees and the RTI response's inadequacy. In contrast, the first respondent maintained that no provision under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or Rules, 2017, permitted pre-advertisement oppositions or hearings for third parties, asserting that the statutory scheme confined challenges to post-advertisement oppositions under Section 21, and that the interlocutory petition lacked a legal basis.
### Discussion on Judgments
No judgments were cited by the parties or referenced by the court in the course of this case. The analysis was confined to a direct interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including Sections 18, 19, and 21, and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, particularly Rules 10, 11, 33, and Entry 15 of Schedule I, without reliance on prior judicial precedents to contextualize or support the arguments or decision.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The judge meticulously dissected Chapter III of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, focusing on the procedure for registration. He noted that Section 18(4) and (5) require reasons only for refusal or conditional acceptance, implying no such obligation for unconditional acceptance, as evidenced by the brief order waiving objections based on submitted documents. Regarding the interlocutory petition, the judge held it lacked statutory foundation, as Entry 15 of Schedule I pertains to fees for specific applications like reviews or uncontemplated matters, but any petition must invoke a substantive provision from the Act or Rules. He clarified that while Rule 33 allows examination and re-examination by the Registrar, it does not envision third-party oppositions at that stage, which are expressly reserved for post-advertisement under Section 21 and Rules 42-51. Although acknowledging the Registrar's power under Section 19 to withdraw acceptance pre-registration, the judge reasoned this does not confer a right on third parties to be heard, as the provision is silent on such entitlements. He suggested procedural improvements, like mandating citation of provisions in interlocutory applications and enabling rejections for non-maintainability, to enhance transparency. Balancing equities, the judge found no prejudice to the petitioner, who had already lodged an opposition under Section 21, while quashing the acceptance would cause irreparable harm to the applicant, thus justifying non-interference.
### Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, upholding the acceptance report and advertisement. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly, with the court observing that the petitioner's remedy lies in the ongoing opposition proceedings before the Registrar.
### Law Settled in This Case
This case establishes that third parties have no inherent right to intervene or be heard at the pre-advertisement stage of trademark registration unless explicitly provided under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or Rules, 2017. It clarifies that interlocutory petitions challenging applications must be grounded in specific statutory provisions to be maintainable, and the Registrar's power to withdraw acceptance under Section 19 does not mandate hearings for objectors. The judgment reinforces that oppositions are confined to the post-advertisement phase under Section 21, promoting procedural efficiency while suggesting enhancements for handling miscellaneous applications to ensure fairness and accountability.
### Case Details
Case Title: Rajkumar Sabu Vs. Sabu Trade Private Ltd.
Date of Order: August 19, 2025
Case Number: W.P.(IPD)No.34 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2069
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Name of Judge: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
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
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Pre-Advertisement Interventions in Trademark Registration: Limits and Procedural Safeguards under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
2. The Role of Interlocutory Petitions in Trademark Examination: A Critical Analysis of Statutory Gaps
3. Balancing Applicant Rights and Third-Party Objections: Insights from the Madras High Court's Dismissal of Pre-Acceptance Challenges
4. Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act: Discretion to Withdraw Acceptance without Mandatory Hearings for Objectors
5. Procedural Fairness in IP Registration: Examining the Absence of Pre-Advertisement Opposition Mechanisms
6. RTI and Trademark User Claims: Judicial Scrutiny of Registrar's Responses in Fabrication Allegations
7. Enhancing Transparency in Trade Mark Rules: Recommendations for Handling Miscellaneous Applications
8. Post-Advertisement Oppositions as the Primary Remedy: Reinforcing Efficiency in Indian Trademark Law
