Kerala High Court
Controller General Of Patents vs * Additional
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: Manjula Chellur, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935
W.P.(C).No.14153 of 2009 (S)
-----------------------------------------------
SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON A
PETITION RECEIVED FROM SRI.R.S.PRAVEEN RAJ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REGARDING TRADEMARK
REGISTRATION ON THE PICTURE OF THE DEITY OF
ATTUKAL TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADVOCATE SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW (AMICUS CURIAE)
RESPONDENTS:-
----------------------------
1. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS & TRADEMARKS,
BHOUDHIK SAMPADABHAVAN,
NEAR ANTOP HILL HEAD POST OFFICE, S.M.ROAD, ANTOP HILL,
MUMBAI - 400 037.
2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. SRI.R.S.PRAVEEN RAJ,
(PETITIONER MADE AS RESPONDENT)
S/O.P.RAJAGOPAL,
RESIDING AT AISWARYA, T.C. 51/481, KUNNUVILA,
PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
W.P.(C).NO.14153 OF 2009 - 2 -
* ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.4 IMPLEADED:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDL.R4. THE ATTUKAL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
* ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 23.05.2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.14153 OF 2009.
R1 BY SENIOR PANELCOUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL.
R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.PRADEESH RAJ
ADDL.R4 BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE),
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.MANU V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
"C.R."
Manjula Chellur, C.J. &
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.14153 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this, the 12th day of September, 2013
JUDGMENT
K.Vinod Chandran,J.:
This suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) has been registered on the basis of a petition sent by one R.S.Praveen Raj of Thiruvananthapuram, who has been transposed as 3rd respondent herein. For convenience, he is referred to as "petitioner".
2. The petitioner claims to be a person having experience in the field of Intellectual Property Rights alleging that the registration of a trademark of the "picture of Attukal deity" and on the appellation "Sabarimala of Women" are against the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as also in violation of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner assails the logic of having registered a trade mark on a religious symbol which, according to him, is an affront on the faith of devotees, more so when on such registration the place of worship is reduced to a "business outfit" WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 2 -
engaged in trade and commerce. The petitioner also alleges that appropriation by the Temple Trust of the picture of the goddess would seriously and prejudicially interfere with the rights of an individual devotee and the monopoly thus established would prevent worship of the said deity by any person unless otherwise authorized by the Trust. The petitioner also asserts his right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 bypassing the remedies available under Sections 47 and 57 of the Act, since it entails procedural wrangles and payment of fees and more so since the petition is moved in public interest.
3. At the Court's instance, Sri.Santhosh Mathew, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae, who has taken pains in explaining the nuances of the law on the subject as also placing the pleadings, the provisions of law and the precedents in the proper perspective along with his opinion by way of Note dated 19.08.2013. The Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust - 4th respondent herein, is represented by learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.B.Sureshkumar; the 2nd respondent by the learned Government Pleader and the 1st respondent, the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks by Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil .
WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 3 -
4. Admittedly the records of the Trademarks Registry indicate two Trademark Applications having been filed, bearing application Nos.1420799 and 1420800, under Class 42 (Device of Deity) for the following services:
a) Temple services,
b) Social service,
c) Welfare service,
d) Cultural activities.
The said applications, as indicated above, are for the registration of the "picture of the Attukal Deity" and on the appellation "Sabarimala of Women". The contention of the petitioner was that the icon of the Attukal Deity is 'Common' and the same cannot be appropriated or monopolised by the Trust and that the grant of registration pre-supposes a certain commercial advantage reducing the temple to a source of commerce, thus injuring the faith and beliefs of the devotees. According to Sri.Santhosh Mathew, the Draft Manual for Trademark Practice and Procedure does not place a blanket prohibition on the registration of religious symbols and deities; nor can an interpretation be placed on Section 9(2)(b) that such a registration would contravene the provisions of the Act. In fact the Manual accepts the fact that it is a common trade practice in India to use the names and pictures of Gods and Goddesses or religious WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 4 - symbols as trademark (5.12.2). The Manual also carves out specific exceptions to the trademark registration by 5.12.3. The said extracts from the Manual are given herein below:
"5.12.2 It is to be noted that it is a common trade practice in India to use names and pictures of Gods and Goddesses or religious symbols as trade mark. Accordingly, such use per se is not regarded by public as offending religious sentiments of any class or section or public. However, such use in relation to certain goods may offend the religious sentiments of the people. For example, use of names/device of deities or religious heads on footwear may be considered distasteful and will be open to objection. Similarly, use of Hindu gods in respect of beef or meat products or use of names of Muslim saints for pork products would offend the religious feeling of respective sections of the public to attract the objection under Section 9(2)(b). 5.12.3 List of marks prohibited from registration by virtue of directions of Central Government:
Certain names and pictures of God and Goddess as also religious heads are prohibited from being registered as trademarks in terms of directions issued by the Central Government under Section 23(1) of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. These directions continue to remain valid. The list which includes the following should therefore be decided in all cases to ensure compliance. List of Marks:
10. Words "Lord Buddha" or the device of Lord Buddha or any colourable imitation thereof.
11. Words "Shree Sai Baba" or the device of Shree Sai Baba or any colourable imitation thereof.
12. Words "Sri Ramkrishna, Swami Vivekananda, the Holy Mother alias Sri Sarada Devi or the devices of Sri Ramkrishna, Swami Vivekananda, the Holy Mother alias WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 5 - Sri Sarada Devi and the emblems of the Ramkrishna Math and Mission or colourable imitations thereof.
16. Names and pictures of Sikh Gurus, viz., Guru Nanak, Guru Angad, Guru Amar Das, Guru Ram Das, Guru Arjun Dev, Guru Hargobind, Guru Har Rah, Guru Har Krishnan, Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Govind Singh.
19. Name and/or picture of the deity of Lord Venkateswara and/or Balaji.
5.12.5 Examples of marks which may be considered to be objectionable - Section 9(2)(b) or 9(2)(c).
Religious symbols Use of religious symbols (like OM) or names (ex: Jesus) as trademarks is likely to undermine/offend religious value and sentiments. Names of God/Goddesses which are also used as personal names which may be considered as personal names unless accompanied by the device of such God/Goddess for registration purpose".
5. The Amicus Curiae is of the opinion that the name of the deity, being in the public domain, cannot be monopolized and the picture of the deity and the title 'Sabarimala of Women' cannot be granted trademark protection. This opinion seems to stem from the fact that the Goddess is worshipped as the "supreme mother and creator of all living beings". The learned Amicus Curiae also draws a parallel in referring to the various denominations within Christianity and a situation wherein one of the denominations claims right over the picture of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ believed to have been sent WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 6 - to redeem the entire humanity, including non-Christians, the other denominations within Christianity cannot claim such exclusivity to the picture or name. Hence, the present registration, equated with the above situation, it is contended, cannot be granted. The learned Amicus Curiae relies on Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (48) PTC 235 (Del)], IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (50) PTC 535 Del)], both by the High Court of Delhi, and Amritpal Singh v. Lal Babu Priyadarshi and Anr. [2005 (30) PTC 94 IPAB] by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. With respect to the exclusive right or title over the services by the Trust, the Amicus Curiae places reliance on Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay [AIR 1954 SC 388] to negative any proprietary right of the said services on the Trust, since any devotee could carry out such services. The learned Amicus Curiae also supports the contention of the petitioner that Article 25 of the Constitution of India granting freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion would definitely take within its ambit any action likely to hurt the religious sentiments of a class or section of the citizens of India and the same would be a ground for rejecting an application for granting WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 7 - registration under the Act, especially when by such registration the State endorses and bestows the registered proprietor of the trademark with the exclusive right to its use in relation to the goods or services for which the registration is made. The exclusive right obtained by the Trust on such registration, according to the Amicus Curiae, preclude the use of the picture of the deity or the title by any devotee in services initiated by them.
6. Though neither a binding nor persuasive precedent, we have looked at Amritpal Singh (supra). The appeal before the Appellate Board was filed by an objector to the registration of the word 'RAMAYAN' with the device of crown in respect of incense sticks and like products; claimed by the respondent. The Board found that there is widespread use of the word as a mark for the same products in different parts of the country and that the word as such does not have a distinctive meaning of the products of the 1st respondent. The word, having a descriptive particular meaning and association with the religious feelings of a vast section of the Indian society, the registration granted was set aside in appeal.
7. Bhole Baba and IHHR Hospitality (both supra) dealt with appeals respectively from the grant of a conditional injunction order and refusal of injunction. In Bhole Baba, the defendant, who WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 8 - was selling ghee using the trademark "KRISHNA" was restrained from such use, unless the same was preceded by the words "PARUL'S" and "LORD" in the same font with equal prominence. In IHHR Hospitality, the appellant, a registered proprietor of the service mark "ANANDA", was aggrieved by the respondent marketing its apartments in a Group Housing Gated Complex under the name "Bestech Park View Ananda". Bhole Baba was followed in IHHR Hospitality and the ratio of both the decisions would be clear from the following paragraphs in IHHR Hospitality:-
"7. With respect to use of common words and especially which relate to the culture of a country, a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 186 (2012) DLT 234 (DB) Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd., had opined that law would ordinarily lean against common words having cultural roots in the society being monopolised to the exclusion of others. The word in dispute in said case was 'Krishna', a God linked with milk and butter, for his love for milk and butter, in India. The products concerned were dairy products.
8. The appellant has chosen to obtain registration of a word, as its trademark, which is not only public juris but is a word which is closely associated by the large mass of people in India as indicative of, in relation to an abode: a place of peace where the mind, the body and the soul can relax and rejuvenate.
WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 9 -
9. Being the registered proprietor of the trademark 'Ananda', the appellant would have to show, prima facie evidence that so strong in the public mind is the mark linked, with reference to it having achieved secondary distinctiveness, that upon seeing mark 'Ananda' in relation to an abode, it immediately brings to mind the appellant. This would require prima facie evidence wherefrom a view could be taken that the word 'Ananda' reminds the consumer, without any further prompting, that the product is that of the appellant".
8. We are of the definite opinion that there is a subtle distinction from the above cited decisions and the instant case. The said decisions indicate rival claims set up by business establishments, to names of Hindu deities or concepts which are commonly used not only in religious aspects, but has also been associated with goods and services. The rival claimants intended to market their goods or services, in such names, and in exclusion to other commercial ventures. In the instant case, it is the Trust which manages the temple and is in charge of the affairs of the deity; a perpetual minor in law, who has obtained registration of the picture of the deity as also the appellation. According to us, what assumes significance is the status of the deity as also that of the Trust in relation to the deity.
WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 10 -
9. We deem it fit that an examination of the legal status of a Hindu deity, in accordance with the religious tenets as distinguished from semitic religions is apposite in deciding the issue. Hindu Law recognizes a Hindu idol as "a juridical subject being capable in law of holding property by reason of Hindu Shastras following the status of a legal person in the same way as that of a natural person" (sic) [Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar [(1999) 5 SCC 50]. Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick [(1925) 52 IA 245] throws further light on the concept of how a Hindu deity is treated in law:
"One of the questions emerging at this point, is as to the nature of such an idol, and the services due thereto. A Hindu idol is, according to long established authority, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by courts of law, a "juristic entity'. It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. Its interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir. It is unnecessary to quote the authorities; for this doctrine, thus simply stated, is firmly established (page 250).
A useful narrative of the concrete realities of the position is to be found in the judgment of Mukerji, j in Rambrahma WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 11 - Chatterjee v. Kedar Nath Banerjee: 'We need not describe here in detail the normal type of continued worship of a consecrated image the sweeping of the temple, the process of smearing, the removal of the previous day's offerings of flowers, the presentation of fresh flowers, the respectful oblation of rice with flowers and water, and other like practices. It is sufficient to state that the deity is, in short, conceived as a living being and is treated in the same way as the master of the house would treated by his humble servant. The daily routine of life is gone through with minute accuracy; the vivified image is regaled with the necessaries and luxuries of life in due succession, even to the changing of clothes, the offering of cooked and uncooked food, and the retirement to rest.' (pages 250-251) The person founding a deity and becoming responsible for these duties is de facto and in common parlance called shebait. This responsibility is, of course, maintained by a pious Hindu, either by the personal performance of the religious rites or as in the case of Sudras, to which caste the parties belonged by the employment of a Brahmin priest to do so on his behalf. Or the founder, any time before his death, or his successor likewise, may confer the office of shebait on another (page 251).
xxx xxx xxx It must be remembered in regard to this branch of the law that the duties of piety from, the time of the consecration of the idol are duties to something existing which, though symbolising the Divinity, has in the eye of the law a status as a separate persona. The position and rights of the deity must, in order to work this out both in regard to its preservation, its WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 12 - maintenance and the services to be performed, be in the charge of a human being. Accordingly he is the shebait custodian of the idol and manager of its estate (page 251-252).
xxx xxx xxx A fortiori it is open to an idol acting through his guardian the shebait to conduct its worship in its own way at its own place, always on the assumption that the acts of the shebait expressing its will are not inconsistent with the reverent and proper conduct of its worship by those members of the family who render service and pay homage to it (page 259".
10. The deity in the instant case is the "Attukal Bhagavathy" and the Trust stands in the status of the manager of the estate of the idol; a perpetual minor. That the deity, in this case the Attukal Bhagavathy, has been consecrated in the temple of which the management is run by the Trust are undisputed facts. The registration of the picture as also the appellation, as is evident from the pleadings, is for the services mentioned above, which are specified under Entry 42 of the Fourth Schedule of the Trademarks Rules, 2002. The application has been submitted based on the common law right of the prior user available to the Trust for the picture and for the appellation. It is the definite pleading of the Trust as also the official respondents that the picture and the appellation WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 13 - have acquired a distinctive character in relation to the activities and services above specified and related to the temple, as a result of a long and uninterrupted user as is provided under Section 9 of the Act. We also do not see any prohibition from granting registration of the picture and appellation to the Temple Trust under the provisions of the Act or the Rules.
11. One of the grievances of the petitioner, supported by the Amicus Curiae, is that the registration confers an exclusivity to the picture of the deity prohibiting any worship unless by due authorization from the trust. We clearly notice the contention of the Trust in their counter affidavit dated 4.3.2011 that is not their intention to restrict the rights of the devotees to worship the deity of the temple and that it was only their intention to prohibit the use of the picture of the deity and the appellation for services protected under the registration. It is specifically averred that the registration only prohibits the user of the picture for the specified services. The learned Amicus Curie also has, in the course of argument, fairly submitted that the registration of the picture and appellation with respect to the temple services as has been explained by the respondent-Trust in their counter affidavit would not cause any prejudice to any devotee or any member of the public. However WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 14 - abstract be spiritual affairs, it would be sailing over the cusp of reason to hold that the registration would alienate the deity from the devotee. Worship is personal and the registration is inconsequential as far as the belief of a devotee is concerned and it has no effect, material or spiritual, on the deity.
12. It is common knowledge that the Hindu pantheon of deities include 330 million deities (sic), which are all considered as manifestations of the supreme being. The right to worship any of them individually or collectively or to have for oneself a deity which does not fall in the 330 million cannot be denied to any individual. The parallel drawn by the Amicus Curiae with reference to Christianity and Jesus, in our opinion may not be apposite. The distinction is in Christianity, a semitic religion, characterized by monotheism as distinguished from polytheism. The fact is that each of the Hindu deities popularly and commonly understood are revered in different forms, conferring varied presumed powers in different locales. A deity venerated and worshipped in a locality though the manifestation of the supreme being and also equated with one of the deities in the pantheon, all the same would have by lore or myth, unique qualities and powers as distinguished from such deity consecrated anywhere else. Further, while an application for WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 15 - registration of the name "Jesus" would invite specific prohibition as per the provisions of the Act and the Manual; in the present case viewed in the above backdrop, such a restriction, according to us, is not there.
13. Delving further on the services offered and the exclusivity for the same, using the picture of the deity and the appellation, we are not impressed with the contention of the petitioner that it promotes a commercial activity in the premises of a temple or in the name of the deity. We again notice the specific averment of the respondent-Trust that the registration only prohibits the user of the picture of the deity and appellation for services protected under the registration. It is also the belief of the Hindus that the worship of the deity is not only by offerings to the deity, but also to one's fellow-beings. The deity is pleased when the devotees are served. To pick an activity from the services specified above, "Dhana" (charity) is considered to be one of the "Dharmas" of a Hindu, of which "Annadhana" occupies a pride of place. 'Annadhana', transliterated as 'offering of rice', though offered free of cost, often is offered in the name of a deity or a temple. Feeding the hungry is regarded as a form of discharging one's debt to the community. For a devotee to make such offering in the name of a WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 16 - deity, definitely the cost would have to be borne by such devotee and when it is made in the name of a deity of a temple, the Trustees or Managers of the temple do it on behalf of the devotee and realize the costs from the devotee. What is prohibited by the registration is not making an offer of Annadhana by an individual, even in the name of a deity consecrated at Attukal, but receiving money from others projecting and promoting oneself to be the agent or the Manager of the temple or the deity. To conduct an Annadhana for which money is received from the public or from any individual in the name of the deity or the appellation for the Temple, is what is prohibited by the registration. It is common knowledge that today faith, not comprehensible to the five senses, is one of the biggest businesses. Contrary to the allegation of the petitioner that by registering the picture and the appellation for the aforesaid services, the Temple Trust reduces the place of religious worship to a business; we are of the opinion that it prohibits such activity in the name of the deity or the temple by any other and thus restricts the commercialization of the services offered in the name of the deity.
14. We are now left with the contention of violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The learned Amicus Curiae has specifically referred to Ratilal Panachand Gandhi WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 17 - (supra) to contend that the Trust cannot have an exclusive right over the picture of the deity and for the said services. The issue, which engaged the attention of a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, was with respect to the constitutionality of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which was passed with a view to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of the public and religious trusts in the State of Bombay. The provisions of the Act made applicable to Temples, Mutts and other Trusts were assailed on the ground that the provisions of the Act are in direct conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The scope and ambit of the fundamental rights embodied in the two Articles of the Constitution was succinctly stated thus:
"10. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to every person and not merely to the citizens of India the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. This is subject, in every case, to public order, health and morality. Further exceptions are engrafted upon this right by clause (2) of the Article. Sub-cl.(a) of Cl.(2) saves the power of the State to make laws regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 18 - practice; and sub-cl. (b) reserves the State's power to make laws providing for social reform and social welfare even though they might interfere with religious practices.
Thus, subject to the restrictions which this Article imposes, every person has a fundamental right under our Constitution not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt acts as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for the edification of others. It is immaterial also whether the propagation is made by a person in his individual capacity or on behalf of any church or institution. The free exercise of religion by which is meant the performance of outward acts in pursuance of religious belief, is, as stated above, subject to State regulation imposed to secure order public health and morals of the people.
What sub-cl.(a) or cl.(2) of Article 25 contemplates is not state regulation of the religious practices as such which are protected unless they run counter to public health or morality but of activities which are really of an economic, commercial or political character though they are associated with religious practices.
11. So far as Art.26 is concerned, it deals with a particular aspect of the subject of religious freedom. WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 19 - Under this Article, any religious denomination or a section of it has the guaranteed rights to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage in its own way all affairs in matters of religion. Rights are also given to such denomination or a section of it to acquire and own movable and immovable properties and to administer such properties in accordance with law.
The language of the two Cls.(b) and (d) of Art.26 would at once bring out the difference between the two. In regard to affairs in matters of religion, the right of management given to a religious body is guaranteed fundamental right which no legislation can take away. On the other hand, as regards administration of property which a religious denomination is entitled to own and acquire, it has undoubtedly the right to administer such property but only in accordance with law. This means that the State can regulate the administration of trust properties by means of laws validly enacted; but here again it should be remembered that under Art.26(d), it is the religious denomination itself which has been given the right to administer its property in accordance with any law which the State may validly impose. A law, which takes away the right of administration altogether from the religious denomination and vests it in any other or secular authority, would amount to violation of the right which is guaranteed by Art.26(d) of the Constitution". WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 20 -
The exclusivity for the services aforementioned, as noticed by us, does not fall foul of the dictates of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the principle behind which has been pithily stated in the aforementioned paragraphs.
15. We do not see any merit in the grievances projected by the petitioner against the registration of the picture of the deity and the appellation by the respondent-Trust.
16. Before leaving the matter, we also detain ourselves, though haltingly, with respect to the contention of the petitioner that he had not invoked the alternate remedies by reason only of the procedural rigmarole and the liability of fees, especially so since the matter concerns public interest. We are afraid that these are not compelling grounds to invoke the extra ordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Act provides for registration of trademarks with respect to goods and services and confers certain rights on the registered holder of a trademark. The Act also provides for objecting to such registration and even cancellation of already registered marks. Such remedies can be invoked by any aggrieved person and the procedural wrangles or the liability to pay fees even where public interest is involved, cannot clothe a person with the right to bypass such alternate remedy and approach this Court WP(C).No.14153 of 2009 - 21 - under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, since suo motu proceedings have been taken on the basis of the complaint, we answer the issue as above.
The writ petition, initiated suo motu, is closed as the complaint is devoid of any merit. We place on record our appreciation, of the efforts taken by the learned Amicus Curiae in resolving the issue. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran,
vku/ Judge.
( true copy )