Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

$~30 to 32 & 1 (SB)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st March, 2022
+ W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & CM 27/2022
DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shashi P.
Ojha and Ms. Deeksha Singh,
Advocates. (M:9891584230)
versus
CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND
TRADEMARKS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish V. Shankar, CGSC with
Ms. S. Bushra Kazim & Mr. Srish
Kumar Mishra, Advocates for UOI.
31 WITH
+ W.P.(C)-IPD 88/2021 & CM 31/2021
TERRACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani and Mr. Ashish
Singh, Advocates. (M:9953771080 &
9811083706)
versus
THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND
TRADE MARKS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish V. Shankar, CGSC with
Ms. S. Bushra Kazim & Mr. Srish
Kumar Mishra, Advocates for UOI.
32 WITH
+ W.P.(C)-IPD 103/2021
PARVESH KAMBOJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amarjeet Kumar, Advocate.
versus
THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND
TRADEMARKS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Davesh Vashishtha and Mr.
Sharabh Srivastava, Advocates for R-
3.
1(SB) AND
+ W.P.(C) 1907/2022, CM APPLs. 5485/2022, 11118/2022 &

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 1 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

12729/2022
SOUMYA JOSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate.
(M:8860839567)
versus
REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS NEW DELHI
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are four writ petitions filed by different Petitioners who have
been forced to approach this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the completely
arbitrary and discriminatory manner in which the Controller General of
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks/Respondent (hereinafter “CGPDTM”)
has disallowed the Petitioners from filing oppositions to the trademark
applications, which each of them wishes to oppose. The said oppositions
have not been entertained on the ground that they were proposed to be filed
beyond the time period of four months, as prescribed under Section 21 of the
Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter “Trademarks Act”).
3. The details of the trademark applications in each of the cases are as
under:

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 2 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

W.P.(C.) TRADEMARK DATE OF TRADE DATE FOR STATUS AND

NO. APPLICATION APPLICATION MARK EXPIRY OF DATE OF
NO. JOURNAL PERIOD TO ISSUANCE OF
FILE REGISTRATION
OPPOSITIONS CERTIFICATE

W.P.(C)-IPD 3872572 for 28th June, 2018 Trade 10th September, Registration
88/2021 ‘SANJIVANI Marks 2021 Certificate has
MANTRA’ Journal No. been issued on 23rd
1999-0 September, 2021
dated 10th
May, 2021

W.P.(C)-IPD 3547316 for 12th May, 2017 Trademark 2nd March, 2021 Registration
103/2021 ‘GREASE Journal No. Certificate has
BUCKET PUMP 1972-0 been issued on 8th
(Shape of dated 2nd April, 2021
Goods)’ November,
2020

3502874 for 3rd March, 2017 Trade Mark 15th June, 2021 Registration
‘DEVICE’ Journal No. certificate has been
1987-0 issued on 4th
dated 15th March, 2022
February,
2021

W.P.(C)-IPD 4996426 for 7th June, 2021 Trade Mark 18th November, Opposed
4/2022 ‘RAZOMAX’ Journal No. 2021
2009-0
dated 19th
July, 2021

W.P. 5093598 for 18th August, Trade 6th January, Registration

(C)1907/2022 ‘SYZYGY’ 2021 Marks 2022 Certificate has
Journal No: been issued on 25th
2016 dated February, 2022
6th
September,
2021

4. Ld. counsels for the Petitioners submit that the arbitrary manner in
which the Trademark Registry is functioning is evident from the fact that the
benefit of the order of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of
2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation has been
selectively given to some opponents and not to all. In some of these matters,

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 3 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

it is submitted by ld. Counsels that when the opponents tried to file

oppositions after the expiry of the four-month period, in view of the
extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court, the portal did not
permit the said filing. The Petitioners tried to file the hard copy of
oppositions which were also stated to have not been accepted. Repeated
emails written by the opponents to the concerned office in the Trademark
Registry also evinced no response whatsoever. It is the Petitioners’
grievance that despite the Trademark Registry being aware of the
oppositions of the Petitioners and of the present writ petitions having been
filed, registration certificates have also been issued in three of the matters,
without any reference to the Petitioners. Therefore, ld. Counsels submit that
despite the Trademarks Registry being cognizant of the grievances of the
Petitioners and the fact that they wish to file oppositions to the said
applications, the registration certificates were issued in an indiscriminate
manner.
5. Moreover, in all the three writ petitions where registration certificates
have been issued, the certificates of registration are stated to have been
issued after filing of the writ petition and after advanced copy had been
served on the CGPDTM. This position is disputed by the registered
proprietor of the trademark in question i.e., Respondent No. 3 in W.P.(C)-
IPD 103/2021.
6. Heard. At the outset, it is noted that Section 21 of the Trademarks Act
read with Rule 42 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017 (hereinafter “Trademarks
Rules”), provides for a period of four months for filing of oppositions to a
trademark application. The said section reads as under:
“21. Opposition to registration.—

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 4 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

(1) Any person may, within three months from the date
of the advertisement or re-advertisement of an
application for registration or within such further
period, not exceeding one month in the aggregate, as
the Registrar, on application made to him in the
prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed
fee, allows, give notice in writing in the prescribed
manner to the Registrar, of opposition to the
registration.
…”

7. Rule 42 of the Trademarks Rules reads as under:

“42. Notice of Opposition. — (1) A notice of
opposition to the registration of a trademark under
sub-section (1) of section 21, with such particulars as
specified in Rule 43, shall be filed in form TM-O
within four months from the date of publication of the
trademark journal in which the application for
registration of the trademark was advertised or re
advertised.
…”

8. Thus, in terms of Section 21 read with Rule 42 of the Trademarks

Rules, the period of limitation for filing the oppositions is four months. It is
not disputed that thousands of trademarks have been advertised during the
period of the pandemic.
9. Insofar as the extension of limitation period is concerned, various
orders passed by the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation (supra) make it very clear that the period between 15 th March,
2020 to 28th February, 2022 has to be fully excluded for the purpose of
calculation of limitation under all enactments and statutes, both before
judicial and quasi judicial bodies. The operative portion of the said order
dated 10th January, 2022, reads as under:

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 5 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

“Taking into consideration the arguments advanced

by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the
virus on public health and adversities faced by
litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with
the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in

continuation of the subsequent orders dated
08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed
that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall
stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may
be prescribed under any general or special laws in
respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation

remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become
available with effect from 01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired

during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022,
notwithstanding the actual balance period of
limitation remaining, all persons shall have a
limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the
event the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than
90 days, that longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from

15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in
computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23
(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws,
which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or
tribunal can condone delay) and termination of
proceedings.”

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 6 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

10. There can be no doubt about the fact that the above order would be
applicable to filing of oppositions under Section 21 of the Trademarks Act
as well. The fact that this order is applicable to the filing of oppositions is
also clear from the public notice issued by the CGPDTM dated 18th
January, 2022, which records that the period of limitation shall be computed
in accordance with the earlier order of the Supreme Court dated 10th
January, 2022. The said public notice dated 18th January, 2022, reads as
under:
“In the matter of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.
3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
vide order dated 23.03.2020 (enclosed), extended
period of limitation prescribed under the general
law or special laws with effect from 15.03.2020 till
further orders. Vide order dated 08.03.2021, the
order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end,
permitting the relaxation of period of limitation
between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While doing
so, it was made clear that the period of limitation
would start from 15.03.2021. Thereafter, due to a
second surge in COVID-19 cases, vide order dated
23.09.2021, the said period of limitation is extended
with effect from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021.
Now, vide order dated 10.01.2022 (enclosed), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, has
ordered as follows:
5. Taking into consideration the arguments
advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the
surge of the virus on public health and adversities
faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we
deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of
2022 with the following directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in
continuation of the subsequent orders dated

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 7 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is

directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of
limitation as may be prescribed under any general
or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation
remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become
available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired
during the period between 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance
period of limitation remaining, all persons shall
have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022.
In the event the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater
than 90 days, that longer period shall apply….”
It is accordingly notified to all the concerned
stakeholders/litigants that the period of limitation
shall be computed in accordance with the afore-
cited order dated 10.01.2022 (enclosed) passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”

11. Accordingly, when the orders of the Supreme Court in Cognizance

for Extension of Limitation (supra) have been rightly acknowledged by the
CGPDTM, there was no reason whatsoever, to not accept the oppositions
which were filed by the Petitioners herein. This position is also reaffirmed in
the order dated 30th July, 2020 passed in W.P.(C) 3059/2020 titled
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) & Anr. v. The
Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Anr., wherein
public notice dated 19th June, 2020, issued by the CGPDTM had been
placed before the Court which confirmed that timelines for completion of
various acts and proceedings shall be as decided by the Supreme Court in

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 8 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra). The relevant portion of

the order in W.P.(C) 3059/2020 dated 30th July 2020 is as under:
“Learned senior counsel for the petitioners states
that a public notice has been taken out on
19.06.2020 which states as follows:-
“Therefore, it is hereby notified to all the
stakeholders that the Public Notice dated
18.05.2020 stand withdrawn and
timelines/periods for the completion of
various acts/proceedings, filing of any
reply/document, payment of fees etc. falling
due after 15.03.2020, shall be the date as
decided/ordered by the Hon’ble Court.”
It is admitted that nothing further survives in
this matter in view of the above notification.
At this stage, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners states that the petitioners have filed an
impleadment application in the proceedings which
are pending in the Supreme Court i.e. In Re:
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation; Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020.
The application is disposed of.”

12. Therefore, in view of the latest order passed by the Supreme Court,
the entire period of limitation between 15th March, 2020 and 28th February,
2022, is to be clearly excluded.
13. Moreover, there is another disturbing feature in these matters. When
W.P.(C) IPD 4/2022 was heard by this Court on 4th March, 2022, this Court
had directed a senior official from the CGPDTM to be present on the next
date to ascertain the position relating to the extension of limitation, as the
Court was informed that more than 4 lakh registration certificates have been
granted during this period and the rights flowing therefrom ought not to be

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 9 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

jeopardised. On 10th March, 2022, Mr. Sachin Sharma, Deputy Registrar of

Trademarks & GI and Mr. Juneja, Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
appeared before the Court and submitted that various applications filed
within the limitation period, were entertained by the Trademark Registry
during the pandemic. Despite a detailed interaction during the hearing on the
said date, at no point of time was the Court informed of oppositions having
been permitted to be filed, beyond the four months period of limitation.
Accordingly, the Court passed the following order dated 10 th March, 2022,
directing the officials to place a short affidavit on record:
“5. Considering the nature of the matter, let a short
affidavit be placed on record by the office of the
Registrar of Trademarks, giving the following
information:
i. The total number of oppositions filed between the
period 24th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022.
ii. Total number of registration certificates issued to
proprietors between 24th March, 2020 to 28th
February, 2022.
iii. Total number of journals which have been
published for which the limitation period for filing
oppositions would have expired after 15th March,
2020.”

14. The said affidavit dated 15th March, 2022, was filed by the CGPDTM
which revealed the following data.
“5. In compliance of the order dated 10.3.2022, the
reply is submitted Query-wise as follows:

i) The total number of oppositions filed between

the period 24th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022
are 113517.

ii) The total number of registration certificates

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 10 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

issued to proprietors between 24th March, 2020 to

28th February, 2022 is 4,87,347 and

iii) A total of 96 journals were published (i.e.

[1928-2023] Journal No. 1928 dated 18.11.2019 for
which limitation period expired on 18.03.2020 to
Journal No. 2023 dated 25.10.2021 for which
limitation period expired on 25.02.2022) after 15th
March, 2020 till 28.02.2022.”

15. The matter was heard thereafter on 16th March, 2022, and some
counsels submitted that apart from the figures given by the CGPDTM,
various oppositions were also permitted to be filed beyond the period of
limitation under Section 21 of the Trademarks Act. Accordingly, on 16th
March, 2022, the following directions were issued:
“3. Pursuant to the previous order dated 10th
March, 2022, a short affidavit on behalf of the
Registrar of Trademarks & GI, has been handed
over in the Court. Copies of the same have already
been served upon other counsels.
4. Let the said affidavit be brought on record
before the next date.
5. The Court has noted the number of
oppositions and the information stated therein. In
addition, the office of Registrar of Trademarks &
GI, to also inform the Court as to whether any
physical or online filing of oppositions were
permitted to be made, during the pandemic period,
post the expiry of the time period of four months
and if so, how many oppositions were entertained.”

16. Today, pursuant to the said order, Mr. Harish V. Shankar, ld. CGSC,
candidly submits that he has been given instructions that approximately
6,000-7,000 oppositions have been filed during the pandemic period beyond
the four month period of limitation, and the same have also been entertained

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 11 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

by the CGPDTM.
17. This Court is dismayed to record that this fact was not brought to the
notice of the Court on the previous two occasions when the officials of
CGPDTM were present before the Court. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Deputy
Registrar, who is dealing with oppositions, did not inform this fact to the
Court and neither did Mr. Juneja, Assistant Registrar, who has filed the
affidavit dated 15th March, 2022. The fact that 6,000-7,000 oppositions
have been entertained beyond the period of limitation ought to have been
disclosed on the first day when the writ petitions were filed so that judicial
time could have been saved. The non-disclosure of this fact by the officials
of the CGPDTM is clearly unacceptable and appears to be deliberate.
18. In any event, in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court extending
the period of limitation in all proceedings and the stand of the CGPDTM
before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 3059/2020, the CGPDTM has a
duty to extend the limitation for filing oppositions to trademark applications.
On the contrary, the CGPDTM has not only failed to entertain the
oppositions but has gone ahead and jeopardized the rights of the applicants
and issued trademark registration certificates, despite being in receipt of
communications of oppositions/writ petitions. This conduct of the officials
of the CGPDTM cannot be ignored by this Court. In the above factual
background, the following directions are issued:
(i) The delay in filing of oppositions by all four Petitioners in
respect of the applications which they intend to oppose as set
out above, is condoned. They shall now file their oppositions
by 31st March, 2022, either online or offline. The same shall
be registered by the Trademark Registry by 10th April, 2022,

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 12 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

and notices shall be issued to the concerned trademark

applicants. The oppositions shall thereafter proceed in
accordance with the provisions of the Trademarks Act and
the Rules there under.
(ii) The registration certificates that may have been issued to the
trademark applicants in W.P.(C) IPD 88/2021, W.P. (C) IPD
103/2021 & W.P.(C) 1907/2022 shall stand suspended during
this period, till the decision is taken on the oppositions, as
specified herein.
(iii) In W.P.(C) IPD 4/2022, the registration certificate shall not
be issued to the Applicant, till the decision is taken on the
oppositions, as specified herein.
(iv) In so far as other trademarks advertised during the pandemic
are concerned, the advertised application in respect of which
the four month limitation period would have expired after
15th March, 2020, the limitation period in terms of the orders
of the Supreme Court shall be extended for filing oppositions
to the said applications, until the expiry of 90 days from 1st
March, 2022, i.e. till 30th May, 2022. Compliance of this
direction shall be ensured by the respective Controllers in-
charge of Oppositions across the five offices of CGPDTM, in
case any emails are received by prospective opponents/ their
agents/ counsels who wish to file oppositions. During this
period, if any email is received by the CGPDTM from the
opponents/their agents/counsels, the office of the CGPDTM
shall enable the said opposition to be filed either through

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 13 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

online mechanism or through physical filing. Upon filing of

oppositions, the status of the trademark application shall be
reflected appropriately on the portal within 48 hours.
(v) Insofar as trademark registration certificates which may have
been issued during the pandemic period, the registration
certificates shall be dealt with in the following manner:
(a) In respect of the trademark applications in which no
oppositions have been already filed or are received till
30th May, 2022, the said registration certificates shall
remain valid and the said applicants shall enjoy their
statutory rights in accordance with law.
(b) In respect of those trademark applications where
oppositions have already been filed or are filed by 30th
May, 2022, the registration certificates shall either not
be issued or if already issued, the same shall stand
suspended till the oppositions are decided by the office
of the CGPDTM.
(vi) In future, whenever emails concerning oppositions are
received by the Opposition Section, CGPDTM, the
concerned Controller in-charge shall first, ensure that such
emails are replied to within a reasonable time, not later than
three working days and second, that proper instructions are
given by them to the section issuing registration certificates
at the CGPDTM/ concerned officials in the Mumbai office,
depending upon the correspondence received, so that
certificates are not issued while issues relating to opposing

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 14 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

the trademark are being raised with the office of the

CGPDTM.
19. Further, in view of the fact that the office of the CGPDTM was
represented before this Court by two senior officials, namely, Mr. Sachin
Sharma and Mr. Juneja, who did not disclose to this Court or to their own
counsel, the fact that oppositions were entertained even beyond the period of
limitation, this Court deems it proper to impose heavy costs on them. The
officers are warned to ensure that such conduct is not repeated in future.
Accordingly, the said two officials, Mr. Sachin Sharma and Mr. Juneja, shall
deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh each with the DHCBA Pandemic Relief Fund
[A/c No.15530110152195, IFSC Code- UCBA0001553, UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court] by 10th April, 2022. The said amount shall be utilised only for
the purposes of distribution to lawyers and their families who have
deceased/suffered, during the pandemic. Hony. Secretary, Delhi High Court
Bar Association to confirm receipt of the said amount, on the next date. The
proof of costs deposited shall be filed before the Registry and shall be given
to the ld. CGSC, appearing for the CGPDTM, before the next date of
hearing.
20. Additionally, during the hearings in these writ petitions, this Court
was informed that a large number of oppositions are pending and are yet to
be decided. The pendency is due to the lack of officials to hear the
oppositions. This Court notes with some consternation that more than 2 lakh
oppositions are stated to be pending and a substantial number of them are
ripe for hearing, in the office of the CGPDTM, as submitted by the officials
of the CGPDTM. Accordingly, a proposal shall be placed on record by the
office of the CGPDTM in respect of the following:

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 15 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

(i) Status of compliance of today’s order.

(ii) The manner in which the CGPDTM intends to deal with the
said pending oppositions. A complete year wise chart of
oppositions which are pending, where pleadings are complete
and the matters have matured for hearing, shall be filed along
with the proposed mechanism.

(iii) Insofar as registered trademarks qua which oppositions are

filed are concerned, where trademark registration certificates
have been issued, the affidavit shall also inform the
procedure in which the said certificates shall either be
cancelled or recalled.

21. The mechanism so placed, shall be perused by the Court and proper
orders shall be passed on the next date of hearing.
22. Copy of the present order shall also be uploaded in the form of a
public notice on the website of the CGPDTM, www.ipindia.gov.in or any
other website used by the office of CGPDTM.
23. The writ petitions qua the Petitioners are disposed of, in these terms.
All pending applications are also disposed of.
24. List these matters for receiving the status report and for reporting
compliance on 18th May, 2022.
25. These shall be treated as part-heard matters, for the purpose of
compliance.

26. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 16 of 17

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:24.03.2022
05:24:39

as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No
physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MARCH 21, 2022/aman/MS

W.P.(C)-IPD 4/2022 & connected Page 17 of 17