Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Yogesh vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 6 January, 2026

                                केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOCMI/A/2024/141355

 Yogesh                                                  ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                   बनाम
 The CPIO: Trade Mark
 Registry, Boudik Sampada                             ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
 Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Sector -
 14, Dwarka, New Delhi -
 110078


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 29.08.2024             FA   : 28.10.2024          SA      : 22.12.2024

 CPIO : 25.09.2024            FAO : 27.11.2024           Hearing : 06.01.2026


Date of Decision:06.01.2026
                                      CORAM:
                              Information Commissioner
                                Khushwant Singh Sethi
                                     ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:

"1. Current Status and History of My Trademark Application:

-My trademark application number for "LI" made under class 12 on 24/09/2023 is 6122932 OPPOSED by Beijing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd.

2. Basis for Acceptance and Advertisement of the Application by Beijing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd.

Beijing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd. submitted an application No. 6331905 on 06/03/2024 for the same trademark under the same class, which was accepted and advertised. Please provide the grounds for accepting their application, especially considering that my application was already pending. According to Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, no subsequent application should be accepted if a similar or related trademark application is already pending Why was there an oversight or error in this process? 3 Compliance with Provisions of Sections 11 and 9 Please provide details of how compliance with Section 11 (provisions for objection and opposition) and Section 9 (eligibility of trademarks for registration) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was ensured in this case. If there has been any violation of these provisions, please provide details of the responsible officers and the actions taken against them.

4. Validity and Transparency of Departmental Decisions:

-Please clarify how the department ensured the validity of the decision to accept the application by Beijing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd. Was this decision reviewed by a senior officer? If so, please provide a copy of that review and the results of the review.

5. Responsibility and Actions of Departmental Officers:

-Please provide the names, designations, and details of the decisions made by the officers involved in this matter. Was there any inappropriate or negligent action taken by any officer in this case? If so, please provide details of the disciplinary actions taken against them.

6. Legal and Administrative Compliance in the Acceptance of Beijing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd.'s Application:

In the acceptance and advertisement of Beijing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd.'s application, please clarify how the department ensured compliance with legal and administrative procedures. Was there any irregularity in this process? If so, what actions have been taken to address it?

7. Status of Other Similar or Related Trademark Applications:

- Please provide a detailed list of the status of other trademark applications under Class 12 that are identical or similar to my trademark [Your Trademark Name]. This should include details of which applications have been accepted, rejected, or are under opposition or objection.

8. Compliance with Specific Legal Provisions:

-Please clarify the specific sections, subsections, and provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 that were followed in this process. Was there any violation of legal provisions during the acceptance of Beijing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd.'s application? If so, what corrective actions have been taken against the responsible officer?

9. Internal Review and Investigation Reports:

Please provide a certified copy of any internal review, investigation, or assessment report conducted by the department regarding this matter. This information is crucial to ensure that no injustice has been done with respect to my application.

10 Future Actions and Dispute Resolution Process:

- Please clarify what steps the department plans to take in the future regarding my trademark application. Also, provide details of the procedures and corrective measures the department has in place to resolve such disputes.

11. Related Legal Provisions and References:

-Please specify the relevant sections, subsections, and provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that were followed in this process. Please confirm that no Page 3 of 7 legal provision was violated during this process, and if there was any violation, what actions were taken against the responsible officer."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

"This is with reference to your requests under the RTI Act, 2005 received on 29/08/2024 respect of Trademark application no-6122932. The desired information is as follows:

1) The Current status and all events of Application is available in public domain at our official website.https: mrsearch.ipindia.gov.in/eregister/eregister.aspx

2) The Examination report of Application is available in public domain at our official website. https Amescarch.ipindia.gov.in/eregister/eregister.aspx. The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information.

Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.

3) The Application was examined as per Trademarks Act, 1999 and Rules 2017, The Examination report of Application is available in public domain at our official website, The Application was processed as per Trademarks Act, 1999 and Rules 2017..

4) The Note sheet is provided As Annexure-1 and 2 Page 4 of 7

5) The Note sheet is provided As Annexure-1 and 2, Section, Date, User Name and Remarks are provided in the Note sheet. The Application was proceed as per Trademarks Act.1999 and Rules 2017.

6) The Application was examined as per Trademarks Act, 1999 and Rules 2017, The Examination report of Application is available in public domain at our official website, The Application was processed as per Trademarks Act, 1999 and Rules 2017.

7) The information is available in public domain at our official website. At following link uttps://musstanch.apindia.gov.in/tumpublicsearch/tommain.aspx, the Applicant can enter word mark and respective class to obtain the result."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.12.2024.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Dharmender Kumar, CPIO & Examiner of Trademarks & GI, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he has applied for trademark but the said trademark was allotted to Bejing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd. And thereby the respondent has not complied with Section 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The appellant further contended as to how the trademark application was allotted to the aforesaid company.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have provided point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 25.09.2024 along with copies of internal note sheets pertaining to the appellant.

8. The appellant objected to the submissions of the respondent and contended that there must be note sheets in the respondent department that the Bejing CHJ Information Technology Co. Ltd trademark application is not similar to his trademark application. He wanted copies of those note sheets.

In response, the respondent submitted that such information was not available with them.

9. Written submission dated 26.12.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record. The Commission queried the respondent that whether they have served their written submission to the appellant. To this, the respondent confirmed that they have served the same to the appellant.

10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant sought clarifications/queries in his RTI Application and the same does not fall under the definition of information U/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, the CPIO stated that he provided available information, and replied to the appellant in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. But, since the appellant contended that there were discrepancies in processing of his Trademark application by the respondent and, requested for copies of concerned information, the respondent is directed to file an affidavit to the Commission with a categorical statement that "the information requested by the appellant is not available with them,". The respondent shall file the aforesaid affidavit to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add and serve copy of the same to the appellant by Speed Post & e-mail id as mentioned in the RTI Application Dated 29.08.2024, within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 06.01.2026 Page 6 of 7 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Trade Mark Registry, Boudik Sampada Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Sector - 14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 2 The FAA, Trade Mark Registry, Boudik Sampada Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Sector - 14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078

3. Shri Yogesh Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)