Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10839 OF 2023 PETITIONER:
ANSARUL ISLAM CHARITABLE TRUST BEHIND KONDOTTY POST OFFICE, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673638, REPRESENTED BY ITS' SECRETARY AND AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI. MUHAMMED ALI O, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MAMMAD O., ODAKKAL, KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638 BY ADV SUSANTH SHAJI RESPONDENT:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, VANIJYA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011 2 REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS – CHENNAI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BUILDING, GST ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI, PIN - 600032 3 SENIOR EXAMINER OF TRADEMARKS TRADEMARK REGISTRY, CHENNAI INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BUILDING, GST ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI, PIN – 600032 SRI.K.S.PREMJITH KUMAR - CGS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10839 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Ext.P6 order issued by the third respondent on various grounds, but primarily that it has been settled without offering them an opportunity of being heard.
2. Sri.Susanth Shaji – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that, even though a video link was offered to his client by the third respondent, due to certain technical reasons, it was not connected; and therefore, that his client could not present his version.
3. Sri.K.S.Premjith Kumar – learned Central Government counsel, conceded that Ext.P6 order was issued without hearing the petitioner, but put the full blame on them for not having availed of the opportunity. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the petitioner can be given one more opportunity of hearing, and a new order issued by the third respondent; but, however, prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in his favour.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6, not because I have found against it on its
WP(C) NO. 10839 OF 2023 3 merits, but solely because it has been, admittedly, settled without hearing the petitioner; with a consequential direction to the third respondent to reconsider their application, after affording them an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu
WP(C) NO. 10839 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10839/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TRADEMARK APPLICATION BEARING NO. 4930580 DATED 02.04.2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXAMINATION REPORT DATED 07.05.2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXAMINATION REPORT DATED 05.06.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR HEARING DATED 08.06.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE ATTORNEY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 20.07.2022 (11:54 PM) Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING APPLICATION NO. 4928156 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT