M/S Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited vs. Trademarks Registry

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited, had its trademark 'GITAGGED' registered with the Trademarks Registry. After approximately four years of using the mark, the Registry issued a show-cause notice on July 5, 2021, proposing cancellation of the registration under Section 57(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, stating the mark was not distinct. The petitioner replied on July 28, 2021. Despite the reply, the Trademarks Registry passed an order on November 23, 2021, impugned in this writ petition, cancelling the registration. The petitioner contended that the Registry failed to consider their reply and lacked valid reasons for cancellation, acting contrary to the Act's provisions.

Held

The High Court held that a proper adjudication had not taken place. The Court observed that the Trademarks Registry had issued a show-cause notice and received a reply from the petitioner, but this reply was not properly considered in the impugned order. The Court found no valid reasons presented in the order for the cancellation of the trademark registration. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2021. The matter was remitted back to the respondent (Trademarks Registry) for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The Court also directed that the matter be called before the respondent on October 19, 2022, without further notice, and clarified that the observations made in the order would not impede the disposal of the petition on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trademarks Registry, in passing the impugned order dated 23.11.2021, properly adjudicated the matter and considered the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice issued under Section 57(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, particularly in light of the purported exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Trademarks Registry, a quasi-judicial authority, failed to conduct a proper adjudication. They contended that the impugned order lacked valid reasons for cancellation and did not consider the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner asserted that the cancellation was contrary to the provisions of the Act and sought interference from the High Court. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, Trademarks Registry, supported the impugned order and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.