Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rohit vs Office Of The Controller General Of ... on 3 February, 2025

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई िद      ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2023/649366


Rohit                                               ......अपीलकता/Appellant




                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम


CPIO,
Intellectual Property Office,
Plot No 32, Sector 14, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110078                                .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                      :    27.01.2025
Date of Decision                     :    31.01.2025


INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Vinod Kumar Tiwari


Relevant facts emerging from appeal:


RTI application filed on             :    03.10.2023
CPIO replied on                      :    06.10.2023
First appeal filed on                :    06.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order    :    20.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated           :    Nil


Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 03.10.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Can wordmark and label/logo be registered in one application number?

2. Are wordmark and label/logo both registered in trademark Application Number: 2800097?

3. Is wordmark registered in trademark Application Number: 2800097?

4. Application Number: 5161324 is objected from more than 1 year. Please confirm the date when it will be accepted and advertised?

5. Is the wordmark also registered in device trademark? If yes, can the wordmark written jin the device trademark be used separately? (I mean in 'device' the wordmark and photo both are mentioned. Can we use the wordmark without using photos)

6. As per intellectual property law any new application contains trade mark type as 'wordmark' and the wordmark as 'play apps' with same goods/services description (mentioned in application no. 2800097) in class 9 will be open to objection due to Application No.2800097?"

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.10.2023 stating as under:

"1. Please refer to Trademarks Act, 1999 and Trademarks Rules, 2017

2. The information is available in public domain on our official website at https://ipindiaservices.gov.in/eregister/eregister.aspx

3. The information is available in public domain on https://ipindiaservices.gov.in/eregister/eregister.aspx our official website at

4. The application will proceed further in due course of time as per Trademark Act, 1999 and Trademark Rules, 2017

5. In Rahul Gupta Vs CPIO (Central Information Commission) it was held that A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of information in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Please refer to Trademarks Act, 1999 and Trademarks Rules, 2017

6. Same as point no-5"

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.10.2023, held as under.

"I have considered the RTI appeal and the reply of the CPIO. It is observed that the CPIO has furnished the desired information as sought in the RTI application. In view of above, I see no merit in the appeal. Hence, the 1st appeal of Shri Rohit is accordingly rejected."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Anurag, Examiner/CPIO appeared in person.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 21.01.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

"1. The undersigned is the Examiner of Trade Marks and designated as Central Public Information Officer of the Trade Marks Office, IPO.

2. It is relevant to state that the said RTI was received on 03.10.2023 by the Appellant to which the CPIO answer accordingly through letter dated 06.10.2023. The copies of the same are attached herewith as Annexure 1 & Annexure II.

3. The appellant filed first appeal on 06.10.2023. The copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure III.

4. The First Appellate Authority had rejected the Appeal vide order dated 20.10.2023. The copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure IV.

5. The grounds mentioned in the second appeal filed by the appellant are incorrect, incomplete & misleading in nature. Answer-1- The information Sought by Applicant is available in Trademarks Rules, 2017 and Form-

TM-A under The Trademarks Act, 1999. It is mentioned -The applicant must choose either of the following categories 1. Word mark (it includes Page 3 of 5 one or more words, letters, numerals or anything written in standard character), 2.Device mark (it includes any label, sticker, monogram, logo or any geometrical figure other than word mark), 3.Colour (when the distinctiveness is claimed in the combination of colours with or without device), 4.

Three-dimensional trademark (it includes shape or packaging of goods),

4. Sound, for reference TM-A is attached as Annexure-V. With Respect to Answer No-2 and 3 The information Regarding the Application no- 2800097 is available in public domain at our official website. For Reference the Details of Application and Registration Certificate as available in public domain are attached as Annexure- VI and VII.

6. It may be noted that, the Trade Marks Office has rightly replied to the RTI application and correspondence made by the Respondent well within the prescribed time lines.

The Trade Marks Office has diligently complied provision of Trade Marks Act and RTI Act 2005. The Details of All the Trademarks Applications are available at our official website."

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply has been given by the respondent CPIO vide letter dated 06.10.2023. The FAA has upheld the CPIO's reply vide order dated 20.10.2023. After receipt of the hearing notice, the respondent has provided revised reply/information vide letter dated 21.01.2025 wherein they clarified the queries raised by the appellant in his second appeal, contents of which are reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.

The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter.

In view of the above, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA, Intellectual Property Office, Plot No 32, Sector 14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)