Central Information Commission
Anu Sharma vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 14 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOCMI/A/2022/644557
Anu Sharma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Commerce and
Industry Trade Marks
Registry, RTI Cell,
Intellectual Property Office, Plot No.32,
Sector-14, Dwarka, New Dehi-110078 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/11/2022
Date of Decision : 11/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 02/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 18/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.02.2022 seeking the following information:
1. "The correct status of the subject application (under No. 507899);1
2. The correct status of the opposition under No. DEL-9109 filed by Sun Grace Electronics;
3. Whether our request on Form TM-16 dated March 24, 2011 to amend the specification of goods in respect of the subject application in class 09 has been allowed by the Trade Marks Registry. If not, when will the Trade Marks Registry allow the request?
4. The correct status of the opposition under No. DEL-9033 filed by Sun Grace Electronics.
5. When will the Trade Marks Registry call upon us to file the Counter Statement in respect of the opposition under No. DEL-9033?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.03.2022 and stated as follows:-
(1) "As per electronic record status of application is Registered and Registration valid upto is 30/03/1996.
(2) Application no.507899 is Registered.
(3) TM-16 dated 24/03/2011 is rejected (As per electronic record). (4) As per e-record opposition number is 9109."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2022. FAA's order dated 18.05.2022 held as under:-
".........CPIO is directed to provide information as desired in the RTI as per available records."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Vikas Kumar Punia, Sr. Examiner of Trade Marks & CPIO present through intra-video conference.2
The Appellant raised arguments based on her latest written submission dated 09.11.2022 which is reproduced in verbatim as under -
"......We had, on behalf of W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn, applied for registration of the trade mark GRACE under No. 507899 on March 30, 1989 in class 09 in respect of 'scientific, nautical, surveying, and electrical apparatus and instruments (including wireless), photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; coin or counter-freed apparatus; talking machines; cash registers; calculating machines; fire-extinguishing apparatus; parts and fittings therefor' (hereinafter referred to as the subject application). The same was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1084 dated August 01, 1994 at page No. 535. Advertisement extract is enclosed as Annexure A. The following two oppositions have had been filed against the subject application:
1. Opposition filed by Sun Grace Electronics under No. DEL-9109:
The parties to the said proceedings have amicably settled all pending disputes and filed a Compromise memo in Transferred Appeal No. 108/2003/TM/DEL (CM (M) No. 142/95) before the Hon'ble Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Hon'ble Board, vide its order dated September 15, 2004, disposed of the above-mentioned Appeal in terms of the Compromise memo. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, we had filed a request on Form TM-16 dated March 24, 2011 to amend the specification of goods in respect of the subject application in class 09 to read as 'scientific, nautical, surveying, and electrical apparatus and instruments (including wireless), photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; coin or counter-freed apparatus; talking machines; cash registers; calculating machines; fire-extinguishing apparatus; parts and fittings therefor EXCLUDING radios, transistors, tape recorders, amplifiers and decks and parts thereof'. Copy of the Form TM-16 is enclosed as Annexure B. No developments have occurred since then.
2. Opposition filed under No. DEL-9033:
Vide official letter, received by us on November 24, 1994, we were informed that the subject application has been opposed and allotted No. DEL-9033. Copy of the official letter is enclosed as Annexure C. Till this date, we have not received the Notice of Opposition.3
It is pertinent to mention that while the subject application stands 'Opposed', the Trade Marks Registry inadvertently, issued a registration certificate. We had returned the said certificate under cover of letter dated December 12, 1995. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure D. However, the online records of the Registry incorrectly still reflect the status of the subject application as 'Registered' with an alert that Trade mark is likely to be removed due to non-filing of Renewal request within prescribed time limit In case of any discrepancy contact respective Trade Marks Registry. Extract from the online records is enclosed is Annexure E. In view of the inordinate delay, an application under the RTI Act, 2005 was addressed to the Public Information Officer on February 02, 2022 seeking:
xxxxxx In response dated March 02, 2022, the Central Public Information Officer indicated that:
xxxxxxx The response provided no answers and, further, point (3) indicated that the TM-16 filed to amend the specification of goods stands rejected.
In view of the above, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Authority on April 04, 2022. Copy of the appeal is enclosed as Annexure H. The First Appellate Authority in response dated May 18, 2022 to the appeal observed that the Central Public Information Officer has not provided the information as required under the RTI Act and directed him to provide the information and disposed of the appeal. Copy of the response is enclosed as Annexure I. Since no response was received from the Central Public Information Officer, on August 16, 2022 at 3:06:16 PM, the second appeal was filed. Copy of the second appeal is enclosed as Annexure J. Later in the day at 5:43:26 PM, a response from the Central Public Information Officer was received. Copy of the response is enclosed as Annexure K. The said response is by and large similar to the response dated March 02, 2022 of the Central Public Information Officer and again provides no answers...."
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs was already provided in response to instant RTI 4 Application. He further explained that only e-filing records are available in their office and no physical records of information/ records sought are available in their office. It was also clarified by the CPIO that the relevant available records have been again furnished to her in compliance with the FAA's order of
03.08.2022, relevant extracts of which is as under -
"...Query 1:- xxxxxxxx Response: - The Current status of application, as per E-records is that the validity of Registration Stands Expired on 30.03.1996. Query 2:- xxxxxxxx Response: - No Document Related to final disposal of Opposition No.- 9109 is found in records.
Query 3:- xxxxxxx Response: - As per Records, TM-16 stands Rejected. Query 4:- xxxxxxx Response :- As per E-records, No record of Opposition under No. 9033 found to exist.
Query 5:- xxxxxxx Response :- As per E-records, No record of Opposition under No. 9033 found to exist. Therefore, No further information required to be disclosed...."
To a query from the Commission against points no. 4 & 5 of RTI Application as regards the record retention policy, the CPIO submitted in a vague manner that it may not be more than 10 years period and the fact remains that the records sought by the Appellant pertains to the year 1996 which must have been weeded out as per the norms. The CPIO further facilitated a discussion on filing/rejection of TM-16 at length.
The Appellant interjected to state that she has sought the details of records of 'Opposition no. 9033' and which have not provided by the CPIO on the plea that such records do not exist in their office. Therefore, she requested for the intervention of the Commission to provide the information / records. .
Decision:
The Commission upon perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the replies provided by the CPIO earlier and now as these were in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.5
Further the issue raised by the Appellant regarding rejection of TM-16 and also non-consideration of amendments in his TM forms are purely matters of grievance which are outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, upon insistence of the Appellant and in the spirit of the RTI, the CPIO is directed to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to 6 the Appellant deposing categorically that no records of ' Opposition under no. 9033' are found available in their office. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7